So civil liberties is a relative phenomenon is it? Why vs any other group likely to form the next government? Why not Putin or Mao Ze Dong?
Interesting that there is statistical analysis on the number of anti-semitic incidents in the Labour Party. I mean why would anyone commission statistical analysis on something that doesn't exist? Would love to see it, btw.
And then you are back to the Conservatives. Who undoubtedly have plenty of fruitcakes, loonies and out and out racists. Inexcusable and as far as I have seen (I haven't seen any statistical analysis) it is dealt with as it is discovered. And dealt with quite conclusively. Is Ken, for example, in or out of the Labour Party?
But what sticks in the craw is that it is Corbyn, this supposed paragon of civil liberties who bangs on about, er, civil liberties, who has presided over this environment in the Labour Party whereby anti-semites feel emboldened.
I think it is fairly obvious why we would compare a major political party to the only other party capable of winning power, especially when the discussion is on civil liberties when they are both likely to be a little different from Mao and Putin... I suppose we could also compare them to the wicked witch of the East but for the purposes of politics in the UK it seems pointless to make the comparison to anyone else really.
I wasn't aware than statistical analysis' had to be commissioned. I would have assumed anybody with a relatively decent grasp of the subject could perform a very basic one. Although calling it an analysis might make it sound a lot fancier than it is.
You might not like the site, but it contains links to evidence its points.
Haha, if by dealt with you mean a short suspension that is ended either as soon as they can get away with it or need their vote then yes the Conservative party deal with all their problems, I'm sure they would have dealt with Ken much quicker, short suspension and back like they usually do. There is no way Ken would've have had such a long suspension that ended in him resigning.
I've already agreed in this matter he is no paragon of civil liberties as he has a shocking record for allowing racists free reign compared to the Conservative party.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
The introduction of QMV, the creation of the Eurozone bloc vote, and the interplay between those two factors created a situation where we *could* be consistently outvoted in future, if not in the past.
If you had a situation where the UK had a veto (as would every other country in the EU) over proposals then that would have been fine. Integration would have moved slowed, but with more positive consent.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
The role of LotFW has been largely redundant since the end of the Cold War. It mattered when there was a Free World and a Communist World, and a Cold War between them. In those circumstances, like it or not, the USA, as by far the biggest power, had to assume the role of leadership and, in terms of personnel, that devolved on the president.
Without the need for that tight-knit alliance, the need for leadership is - again, for better or worse - much reduced. The US president still has considerable power to influence events simply by virtue of the fact that there are some things that only he has the power to do. But other countries and other leaders were already much more questioning in their willingness to follow, even before Trump threw over any pretence of trying to lead a wider community.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
How does the average US citizen benefit from middle eastern willy waving ?
It hastens the day when Jesus returns and throws the Antichrist and the False Prophet into the lake of fire and the Battle of Armageddon is complete. There will be a great wedding feast celebration of Christ being united with his people (Revelation 21), to the benefit of middle-income working Americans.
It may sound like I'm taking the piss, but this is the actual reason that's driving evangelical attitudes to the Middle East, and evangelical attitudes to the Middle East are driving Republican foreign policy.
This is a dead serious post. A significant number of GOP Congressional reps are actively trying to bring about Armageddon.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
You won’t persuade Leavers. Only this week they’ve convinced themselves that an orchestrated resignation by Leavers to change agreed Cabinet policy amounts to a night of the long knives by Remainers. Their ability to rewrite history is inexhaustible, like Thor’s drinking horn.
like Thor’s drinking horn
Is that the @Anazina approved formulation of "dockside hookers"?
It is going too far to pin the label on an individual like that.
SO has a point, however, in that the historical record is clear that the centre and left in British politics had the longer and stronger track record of opposing fascism in Europe (and enabled Churchill to counter considerable opposition from within his own party), whereas the right, including mainstream Conservative opinion (at least until the war broke out, and in some cases not even then) favoured appeasement and/or accommodation. It seems fairly obvious from where any puppet government would have been drawn.
Ah, so the Tories would have been the collaborators. Glad we cleared that up
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
It must have gone nuclear and then wiped from the records.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
You are the only person on here who continually refers to Obama as "half African"
I find it disrespectful and unpleasant about a former President and public figure.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Emotions and passions were running high - "C" words were involved I think!
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
Which also goes quite a long way towards explaining the disparity between the NATO 2% target and the US's 4%.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Emotions and passions were running high - "C" words were involved I think!
I think your elderly relative test is excellent. But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
Well, there's both, surely. And as Big G points out, plenty who dislike both.
Putin is often a reasonable-sounding man who is also a nationalist expansionist - in his interviews, he ranges from the forensically calm to the mildly irritated. Doesn't make him a nice guy, but he doesn't attract the level of personal distaste that Trump engenders. Which, as you say, is perhaps scarier.
Putin often uses colourful langauge and colloquialisms that are not easily translatable. In his own way he breaks the norms of political communication just as much.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Emotions and passions were running high - "C" words were involved I think!
Top 3 at Betfair for next Tory leader are all in the ERG:
Javid 6.4 Rees-Mogg 8.5 Gove 8.5
They are followed by
Hunt 10.5 Johnson 12.75 Raab 16.5
Laying Johnson looks like easy money. (No sniggering please.)
Javid and Gove aren't ERG are they?
Surprised me as well. According to Wiki they're 'Subscribers to the pooled service provided by the European Research Group', whatever that means. ERG seem quite secretive about who is and who isn't, which is pretty fckng weird in the first place.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
Everyone is the first two, It is quite annoying that despite Corbyn being the friend of Russia they pump money into the Conservative party....
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
When the Romans left Britain they told the inhabitants to look to their own defence. We’re at that stage of the American hegemony it seems.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
You are the only person on here who continually refers to Obama as "half African"
I find it disrespectful and unpleasant about a former President and public figure.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Emotions and passions were running high - "C" words were involved I think!
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
When the Romans left Britain they told the inhabitants to look to their own defence. We’re at that stage of the American hegemony it seems.
Except we colonised America, they didn't colonise Britain.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
False or certainly not on the same scale, don't know, I don't agree.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
Europe was the absolutely central concern in the 20th century because of what happened in Europe in the 20th century. The whole point of Pax Americana here was to ensure that it did not happen again. If the US decides that Pax Americana is past its sell-by date that will create space for others - and the US may not like or enjoy the result.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
It’s quite something to speculate about the silent majority being sanguine about Donald Trump immediately below a thread header with polling showing that 63% would not like to see a Prime Minister like him.
It's the same mindset that thinks every one of the 17.4m Leave voters would prefer to crash out of the EU rather than make a single compromise.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
The introduction of QMV, the creation of the Eurozone bloc vote, and the interplay between those two factors created a situation where we *could* be consistently outvoted in future, if not in the past.
If you had a situation where the UK had a veto (as would every other country in the EU) over proposals then that would have been fine. Integration would have moved slowed, but with more positive consent.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Narcissistic Yuppie vs Pound Shop Begbie ended in a one all draw of bans after extra time.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
There's also the whole Ireland being incorporated into the United Kingdom by force and losing 2/3 of its population to famine and emigration aspect. Quite different to a voluntary union.
OTOH it would get May out of the hole she dug for herself with the backstop agreement.
I think your elderly relative test is excellent. But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
Well, there's both, surely. And as Big G points out, plenty who dislike both.
Putin is often a reasonable-sounding man who is also a nationalist expansionist - in his interviews, he ranges from the forensically calm to the mildly irritated. Doesn't make him a nice guy, but he doesn't attract the level of personal distaste that Trump engenders. Which, as you say, is perhaps scarier.
Putin often uses colourful langauge and colloquialisms that are not easily translatable. In his own way he breaks the norms of political communication just as much.
Can't work out if Labour want another referendum or not, more faces than a dodecahedron.
As long as we limit it to just MPs then there are only about 260+ slightly differing opinions on the matter...
Labour official policy has never been for a 'people's vote' although quite a few Labour MPs are calling for it the vast majority aren't. Also in fairness (at least according to the article) Thangam's position has been consistent as well.
Although if we want to be picky aren't there 2 Lib Dem MPs who aren't calling for a people's vote, which is like a 1/6 of the party. Maybe the SNP are the most consistent on Brexit and a people's vote?
I think you have to go for UKIP if you want a very high level of consistency on Brexit throughout the party, although they have no MPs...
Another judge gets very irritated by Manafort's pretrial motions, and slaps them down unceremoniously...
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.120.0_1.pdf At 5:00 p.m. this evening, however, defense counsel filed a motion opposing defendant’s transfer from Northern Neck to Alexandria, despite having just complained about defendant being housed at Northern Neck.1 In the motion, defense counsel states that “issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about [defendant’s] safety and, more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstances.” [citation omitted] However, defense counsel has not identified any general or specific threat to defendant’s safety at the Alexandria Detention Center. They have not done so, because the professionals at the Alexandria Detention Center are very familiar with housing high-profile defendants including foreign and domestic terrorists, spies and traitors. All these defendants were housed safely in Alexandria pending their respective trials and defendant’s experience at the Alexandria Detention Center will presumably be no different. Moreover, defendant’s access to counsel and his ability to prepare for trial trumps his personal comfort.
1 It is surprising and confusing when counsel identifies a problem and then opposes the most logical solution to that problem. The dissonance between defendant’s motion to continue and motion opposing transfer to Alexandria Detention Center cannot be easily explained or resolved…
Absent a pardon from Trump, or a plea bargain (which may no longer be available to him), I can't see things going well for him.
Mr. Observer, been away for a bit, so apologies for tardy response.
On holding UK politicians to account: electing different people (which did happen in 2010 post-Lisbon) doesn't magically undo agreements already made, which also saw the then-government renege upon their manifesto commitment.
When there's a political consensus (whether total or majority) the electorate can't do much about it in the short term (cf foreign aid spending).
On QMV, about which you're chatting to Mr. Charles, that was agreed in a treaty that we should've had a referendum on and were very likely to reject. That's not 'the UK' agreeing to something, that's the political class of the UK ignoring their manifesto promises, not asking the voters (as promised) to say aye or nay, and signing away UK vetoes contrary to their own pledges to ask the electorate.
That's why people don't trust the political class on this.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
When the Romans left Britain they told the inhabitants to look to their own defence. We’re at that stage of the American hegemony it seems.
Except we colonised America, they didn't colonise Britain.
They certainly had military forces stationed here.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
Europe was the absolutely central concern in the 20th century because of what happened in Europe in the 20th century. The whole point of Pax Americana here was to ensure that it did not happen again. If the US decides that Pax Americana is past its sell-by date that will create space for others - and the US may not like or enjoy the result.
The trouble is this isn't the US deciding anything. The whims of one orange man who knows nothing about the world, and his side kick Jon Bolton, seem to be able to change decades of strategy and work.
God knows how Republicans sleep at night. I thought their ultimate hero was Ronnie Reagan.
Mr. Observer, been away for a bit, so apologies for tardy response.
On holding UK politicians to account: electing different people (which did happen in 2010 post-Lisbon) doesn't magically undo agreements already made, which also saw the then-government renege upon their manifesto commitment.
When there's a political consensus (whether total or majority) the electorate can't do much about it in the short term (cf foreign aid spending).
On QMV, about which you're chatting to Mr. Charles, that was agreed in a treaty that we should've had a referendum on and were very likely to reject. That's not 'the UK' agreeing to something, that's the political class of the UK ignoring their manifesto promises, not asking the voters (as promised) to say aye or nay, and signing away UK vetoes contrary to their own pledges to ask the electorate.
That's why people don't trust the political class on this.
But you back FPTP, which means that the political consensus is much harder to challenge. In Spain, where there is PR, two new parties formed within the last decade have transformed the political landscape. UKIP were around in 2010, but because of the electoral system we have no-one thought it was worth voting for them. It's no coincidence that the referendum got a higher turnout than any GE we have seen for years. People knew that their vote would count.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Narcissistic Yuppie vs Pound Shop Begbie ended in a one all draw of bans after extra time.
That paints quite a picture. Have a KitKat for your efforts.
Europe was the absolutely central concern in the 20th century because of what happened in Europe in the 20th century. The whole point of Pax Americana here was to ensure that it did not happen again. If the US decides that Pax Americana is past its sell-by date that will create space for others - and the US may not like or enjoy the result.
The Pax American came about almost by accident. It was never the US's intention to go all-in on Berlin, and once JFK realised his international standing was totally dependent on defending Berlin from the Soviets they were committed.
Trump, of course, does not care about his international standing outside of Moscow.
Thoughtful piece by Nick Hargrave. I'm not sure I agree with the headline - realignments aren't necessarily splits. Our system is undoubtedly going through a realignment, but it is nowhere near finished nor necessarily going to continue in the same direction.
The introduction:
The debate on Brexit is about values far more than it is about individual policies and trading models.
Lots of people voted to leave because they wanted more control over their lives and communities – and believe the nation state is the best method to realise that ambition. Lots of people voted to remain because – while they understand the pull of the nation – in an era of borderless technology and globalisation it is not worth taking an economic leap in the dark.
Quite a few people (surveys differ, but somewhere between a fifth and a third of the country) were undecided between these competing value systems. On balance, they moved into the Leave column on referendum day because of a very effective campaign run by some very talented pros.
Thoughtful piece by Nick Hargrave. I'm not sure I agree with the headline - realignments aren't necessarily splits. Our system is undoubtedly going through a realignment, but it is nowhere near finished nor necessarily going to continue in the same direction.
The introduction:
The debate on Brexit is about values far more than it is about individual policies and trading models.
Lots of people voted to leave because they wanted more control over their lives and communities – and believe the nation state is the best method to realise that ambition. Lots of people voted to remain because – while they understand the pull of the nation – in an era of borderless technology and globalisation it is not worth taking an economic leap in the dark.
Quite a few people (surveys differ, but somewhere between a fifth and a third of the country) were undecided between these competing value systems. On balance, they moved into the Leave column on referendum day because of a very effective campaign run by some very talented pros.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
There's also the whole Ireland being incorporated into the United Kingdom by force and losing 2/3 of its population to famine and emigration aspect. Quite different to a voluntary union.
It was incorporated into the UK through a vote by the Irish Parliament.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
Europe was the absolutely central concern in the 20th century because of what happened in Europe in the 20th century. The whole point of Pax Americana here was to ensure that it did not happen again. If the US decides that Pax Americana is past its sell-by date that will create space for others - and the US may not like or enjoy the result.
Pax Americana made a virtue out of both a necessity and a reality. It happened both because it was needed and because no other country could fulfil that role - and because Americans had had their eyes open to the reality of the situation before 1939: that they could no longer stand aside from global events.
But by its nature, Pax Americana can only last for as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world and, realistically, has only one prime challenger.
Pax Britannica broke down in the early 20th century because Britain became relatively too weak to complete the role. It was still dominant, or at least, the leader, in global finance, shipping and other international infrastructure, and without serious challenge, could have continued to provide good regulation, administration and delivery of those functions. But other nations were stronger both economically (the US) and militarily - and the challenges they brought inevitably overwhelmed Britain's resources.
So now with the US. America gets a lot of return on its military spend: it means it gets, in large part, to set the rules of the game, whether formally or - through sheer size - informally by its own standards crowding out those of others. That inevitably is going to bring challenge from countries who don't like how the rules of the game are skewed (Trump is being an idiot in providing them with an open goal here). But China is to the US what the US was to Britain: a rapidly industrialising country with a population five times the size. Those numbers *have* to make themselves felt, even before you factor in China's history and sense of its own place in the world.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Virgin released footage later on after a FOI request from a different angle that showed many of the 'empty' seats he walked past were not in fact empty.
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Edit: This seemed too petty for a new post but apparently ram packed is its own phrase that works for it rather than him getting it wrong.
I have used rammed myself for something that is packed, variation on that I guess.
Mr. Observer, PR leads to political fragmentation and governments being decided by the political class after the people have voted, rather than the electorate's collective decision determining the government.
It also doesn't have the magical power to rewind time and undo treaties signed contrary to manifesto promises.
Mr. Price, sounds accurate.
Mr. Anorak, that's not me. Also, importantly, my wiffle stick has never received a 1* rating.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
The introduction of QMV, the creation of the Eurozone bloc vote, and the interplay between those two factors created a situation where we *could* be consistently outvoted in future, if not in the past.
If you had a situation where the UK had a veto (as would every other country in the EU) over proposals then that would have been fine. Integration would have moved slowed, but with more positive consent.
The notion of a Eurozone bloc vote is, IMO, illusory.
The divisions within the Eurozone are greater than those between, say, Germany and Sweden, or Greece and Bulgaria, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Virgin released footage later on after a FOI request from a different angle that showed many of the 'empty' seats he walked past were not in fact empty.
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Lie or no lie, it showed him to be a complete numpty. He's leader of the opposition for goodness sake, so he should have travelled first class.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Virgin released footage later on after a FOI request from a different angle that showed many of the 'empty' seats he walked past were not in fact empty.
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Many of them still looked empty. Ram packed implies standing room only (if that).
It was incorporated into the UK through a vote by the Irish Parliament.
After acts of political, religious and economic violence by the English that made acquiescence unavoidable. The fact that a desperate Parliament had no choice but to accede to England's wishes is hardly any kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
There's also the whole Ireland being incorporated into the United Kingdom by force and losing 2/3 of its population to famine and emigration aspect. Quite different to a voluntary union.
It was incorporated into the UK through a vote by the Irish Parliament.
Which definitely reflected the will of the people. Most of whom couldn't vote.
If Trump wants to destroy NATO, then let him. Europe should have nothing to do with his childish games any longer.
EDIT: I cannot, *will not* believe that his party, an overtly and explicitly atlanticist party for countless generations, will allow this to stand. But the Stockholm syndrome in the GOP runs deep nowadays.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
He didn't lie about that
Yes he did.
It is pure Trumpian politics to say otherwise.
Your not a trusted source , to have as a judge and jury on Corbyn.On your allegations of lying about a train journey.
Quite a few countries with similar figures on that front including Canada, Australia according to Pew Research. Only nine other countries where Trump has worse ratings.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Virgin released footage later on after a FOI request from a different angle that showed many of the 'empty' seats he walked past were not in fact empty.
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Many of them still looked empty. Ram packed implies standing room only (if that).
Many of them are reserved seats. The argument about ram packed is fair enough I guess but his point was about a lack of seating room, people would casually use the phrase much the same way, it was so ram packed I couldn't get a seat.
The point was how regular people have to travel, not that he personally was inconvenienced by it but that many people are inconvenienced by it every day.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
He didn't lie about that
Yes he did.
It is pure Trumpian politics to say otherwise.
Your not a trusted source , to have as a judge and jury on Corbyn.On your allegations of lying about a train journey.
First of all it is 'you're' not 'your'
Would you class The Guardian as a trusted source? Or are they full of Tories too?
Many of them are reserved seats. The argument about ram packed is fair enough I guess but his point was about a lack of seating room, people would casually use the phrase much the same way, it was so ram packed I couldn't get a seat.
The point was how regular people have to travel, not that he personally was inconvenienced by it but that many people are inconvenienced by it every day.
They were reserved? According to wikipedia that was in coach H where seats aren't reserved. And they wouldn't use the term 'ram packed' if they literally walked past empty seats.
He can make that point without having to make stuff up though.
Even Fox News are having a go at Trump over his NATO shenanigans.
Shepard Smith Gives Dark Warning About Trump's 'Unprecedented' Attacks On NATO
The Fox News host says the president’s remarks in Brussels could cause lasting damage.
....The Fox News host boiled down Trump’s attacks to one point: Russian leader Vladimir Putin is likely pleased with Trump’s disruption.
“One thing is certain,” Smith added. “Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than for our NATO alliance to fray. For friends to fight among themselves as we do today in historically unprecedented fashion. For it is NATO that is the best defense against Vladimir Putin and Russian aggression.”
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Only until you see the video that Branson did not want anyone to see, the parts where there were not only reserve tickets, all the seats had children/people in them. Overcrowding, pack em in, grab a profit and run..... Branson is the new Trickie Dickie
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Only until you see the video that Branson did not want anyone to see, the parts where there were not only reserve tickets, all the seats had children/people in them. Overcrowding, pack em in, grab a profit and run..... Branson is the new Trickie Dickie
If Trump wants to destroy NATO, then let him. Europe should have nothing to do with his childish games any longer.
EDIT: I cannot, *will not* believe that his party, an overtly and explicitly atlanticist party for countless generations, will allow this to stand. But the Stockholm syndrome in the GOP runs deep nowadays.
You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in Latvia or Finland.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
He didn't lie about that
Yes he did.
It is pure Trumpian politics to say otherwise.
Your not a trusted source , to have as a judge and jury on Corbyn.On your allegations of lying about a train journey.
First of all it is 'you're' not 'your'
Would you class The Guardian as a trusted source? Or are they full of Tories too?
It speaks a lot about Corbyn's ineptness that he managed to a lose a PR battle against a train company.
That's like losing to Scotland at cricket when you're the world's top ranked team.
You may notice your link is a bit old, it is written prior to the freedom of information request that forced Virgin to release footage rather than being able to pick and choose footage to suit their case.
Try my link a few posts above for a more up to date review of the situation with some of the evidence not being withheld.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
Virgin released footage later on after a FOI request from a different angle that showed many of the 'empty' seats he walked past were not in fact empty.
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Many of them still looked empty. Ram packed implies standing room only (if that).
Many of them are reserved seats. The argument about ram packed is fair enough I guess but his point was about a lack of seating room, people would casually use the phrase much the same way, it was so ram packed I couldn't get a seat.
The point was how regular people have to travel, not that he personally was inconvenienced by it but that many people are inconvenienced by it every day.
You may notice your link is a bit old, it is written prior to the freedom of information request that forced Virgin to release footage rather than being able to pick and choose footage to suit their case.
Try my link a few posts above for a more up to date review of the situation with some of the evidence not being withheld.
It still shows that Corbyn's original allegation was lies.
If Trump wants to destroy NATO, then let him. Europe should have nothing to do with his childish games any longer.
EDIT: I cannot, *will not* believe that his party, an overtly and explicitly atlanticist party for countless generations, will allow this to stand. But the Stockholm syndrome in the GOP runs deep nowadays.
The trouble is that NATO survives a US withdrawal from it. It is all very well having nothing to do with things, but Europe is in a whole ocean of shit when Don's mate Vladimir has a pop at the Baltic states while the treaty subsists.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
The ram packed train.
He didn't lie about that
Yes he did.
It is pure Trumpian politics to say otherwise.
Your not a trusted source , to have as a judge and jury on Corbyn.On your allegations of lying about a train journey.
First of all it is 'you're' not 'your'
Would you class The Guardian as a trusted source? Or are they full of Tories too?
Comments
Javid 6.4
Rees-Mogg 8.5
Gove 8.5
They are followed by
Hunt 10.5
Johnson 12.75
Raab 16.5
Laying Johnson looks like easy money. (No sniggering please.)
I wasn't aware than statistical analysis' had to be commissioned. I would have assumed anybody with a relatively decent grasp of the subject could perform a very basic one. Although calling it an analysis might make it sound a lot fancier than it is.
https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-polls-show-anti-semitism-in-labour-has-actually-reduced-dramatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/
You might not like the site, but it contains links to evidence its points.
Haha, if by dealt with you mean a short suspension that is ended either as soon as they can get away with it or need their vote then yes the Conservative party deal with all their problems, I'm sure they would have dealt with Ken much quicker, short suspension and back like they usually do. There is no way Ken would've have had such a long suspension that ended in him resigning.
I've already agreed in this matter he is no paragon of civil liberties as he has a shocking record for allowing racists free reign compared to the Conservative party.
Our state is quite shambolic.
If you had a situation where the UK had a veto (as would every other country in the EU) over proposals then that would have been fine. Integration would have moved slowed, but with more positive consent.
Without the need for that tight-knit alliance, the need for leadership is - again, for better or worse - much reduced. The US president still has considerable power to influence events simply by virtue of the fact that there are some things that only he has the power to do. But other countries and other leaders were already much more questioning in their willingness to follow, even before Trump threw over any pretence of trying to lead a wider community.
https://twitter.com/Theothebald/status/1017314462586626048
Just think about that.
Is that the @Anazina approved formulation of "dockside hookers"?
"An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act proscribes anyone touching a nude or semi-nude dancer, unless they are related."
Compulsory incest in Ohio?
I find it disrespectful and unpleasant about a former President and public figure.
Do you have a problem with his racial origins?
*banned*
I assume it is all some clever long play where the Russians finance the Conservatives and they don't introduce legislation they wouldn't like (such as https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-vladimir-putin-theresa-may-sergei-skripal-magnitsky-laws-a8253786.html) so the Tories look like they are friends of the Russians and Corbyn's loyalties go unnoticed.
I think the Democrats have got a similar strategy going on with the Republicans.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/time-accept-remainers-lost-referendum-1771291
Can't work out if Labour want another referendum or not, more faces than a dodecahedron.
Labour official policy has never been for a 'people's vote' although quite a few Labour MPs are calling for it the vast majority aren't. Also in fairness (at least according to the article) Thangam's position has been consistent as well.
Although if we want to be picky aren't there 2 Lib Dem MPs who aren't calling for a people's vote, which is like a 1/6 of the party. Maybe the SNP are the most consistent on Brexit and a people's vote?
I think you have to go for UKIP if you want a very high level of consistency on Brexit throughout the party, although they have no MPs...
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.120.0_1.pdf
At 5:00 p.m. this evening, however, defense counsel filed a motion opposing defendant’s transfer from Northern Neck to Alexandria, despite having just complained about defendant being housed at Northern Neck.1 In the motion, defense counsel states that “issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about [defendant’s] safety and, more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstances.” [citation omitted] However, defense counsel has not identified any general or specific threat to defendant’s safety at the Alexandria Detention Center. They have not done so, because the professionals at the Alexandria Detention Center are very familiar with housing high-profile defendants including foreign and domestic terrorists, spies and traitors. All these defendants were housed safely in Alexandria pending their respective trials and defendant’s experience at the Alexandria Detention Center will presumably be no different. Moreover, defendant’s access to counsel and his ability to prepare for trial trumps his personal comfort.
1 It is surprising and confusing when counsel identifies a problem and then opposes the most logical solution to that problem. The dissonance between defendant’s motion to continue and motion opposing transfer to Alexandria Detention Center cannot be easily explained or resolved…
Absent a pardon from Trump, or a plea bargain (which may no longer be available to him), I can't see things going well for him.
Mr. Observer, been away for a bit, so apologies for tardy response.
On holding UK politicians to account: electing different people (which did happen in 2010 post-Lisbon) doesn't magically undo agreements already made, which also saw the then-government renege upon their manifesto commitment.
When there's a political consensus (whether total or majority) the electorate can't do much about it in the short term (cf foreign aid spending).
On QMV, about which you're chatting to Mr. Charles, that was agreed in a treaty that we should've had a referendum on and were very likely to reject. That's not 'the UK' agreeing to something, that's the political class of the UK ignoring their manifesto promises, not asking the voters (as promised) to say aye or nay, and signing away UK vetoes contrary to their own pledges to ask the electorate.
That's why people don't trust the political class on this.
https://twitter.com/OFalafel/status/1017322516069650432
God knows how Republicans sleep at night. I thought their ultimate hero was Ronnie Reagan.
Trump, of course, does not care about his international standing outside of Moscow.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1017328288371486720?s=21
The introduction:
The debate on Brexit is about values far more than it is about individual policies and trading models.
Lots of people voted to leave because they wanted more control over their lives and communities – and believe the nation state is the best method to realise that ambition. Lots of people voted to remain because – while they understand the pull of the nation – in an era of borderless technology and globalisation it is not worth taking an economic leap in the dark.
Quite a few people (surveys differ, but somewhere between a fifth and a third of the country) were undecided between these competing value systems. On balance, they moved into the Leave column on referendum day because of a very effective campaign run by some very talented pros.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/07/nick-hargrave-a-conservative-split-is-inevitable-the-question-is-how-to-manage-and-minimise-it.html
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spring-My-Step-Sallyanne-Rogers-ebook/dp/B00OD4YKFA
But by its nature, Pax Americana can only last for as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world and, realistically, has only one prime challenger.
Pax Britannica broke down in the early 20th century because Britain became relatively too weak to complete the role. It was still dominant, or at least, the leader, in global finance, shipping and other international infrastructure, and without serious challenge, could have continued to provide good regulation, administration and delivery of those functions. But other nations were stronger both economically (the US) and militarily - and the challenges they brought inevitably overwhelmed Britain's resources.
So now with the US. America gets a lot of return on its military spend: it means it gets, in large part, to set the rules of the game, whether formally or - through sheer size - informally by its own standards crowding out those of others. That inevitably is going to bring challenge from countries who don't like how the rules of the game are skewed (Trump is being an idiot in providing them with an open goal here). But China is to the US what the US was to Britain: a rapidly industrialising country with a population five times the size. Those numbers *have* to make themselves felt, even before you factor in China's history and sense of its own place in the world.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/traingate-cctv-virgin-trains-jeremy-corbyn_uk_59a00509e4b0821444c29596
It was well played by virgin though, they knew the media would be up for spreading the lie and many people willing to take it on trust and spread it themselves.
Edit: This seemed too petty for a new post but apparently ram packed is its own phrase that works for it rather than him getting it wrong.
I have used rammed myself for something that is packed, variation on that I guess.
It also doesn't have the magical power to rewind time and undo treaties signed contrary to manifesto promises.
Mr. Price, sounds accurate.
Mr. Anorak, that's not me. Also, importantly, my wiffle stick has never received a 1* rating.
Those wanting my books (under the name Thaddeus White) should check here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
As an aside, Sir Edric's Kingdom has been entered in the latest #SPFBO competition, so we'll see how that goes.
Mr. Eagles, he also used the daft term 'ram packed' when it should be 'jam packed'.
Odd, given he makes his own jam.
The divisions within the Eurozone are greater than those between, say, Germany and Sweden, or Greece and Bulgaria, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
It is pure Trumpian politics to say otherwise.
EDIT: I cannot, *will not* believe that his party, an overtly and explicitly atlanticist party for countless generations, will allow this to stand. But the Stockholm syndrome in the GOP runs deep nowadays.
Quite a few countries with similar figures on that front including Canada, Australia according to Pew Research. Only nine other countries where Trump has worse ratings.
@tlg86
The point was how regular people have to travel, not that he personally was inconvenienced by it but that many people are inconvenienced by it every day.
Would you class The Guardian as a trusted source? Or are they full of Tories too?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/23/jeremy-corbyn-virgin-trains-disputes-claim-over-lack-of-seats
It speaks a lot about Corbyn's ineptness that he managed to a lose a PR battle against a train company.
That's like losing to Scotland at cricket when you're the world's top ranked team.
He can make that point without having to make stuff up though.
Shepard Smith Gives Dark Warning About Trump's 'Unprecedented' Attacks On NATO
The Fox News host says the president’s remarks in Brussels could cause lasting damage.
....The Fox News host boiled down Trump’s attacks to one point: Russian leader Vladimir Putin is likely pleased with Trump’s disruption.
“One thing is certain,” Smith added. “Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than for our NATO alliance to fray. For friends to fight among themselves as we do today in historically unprecedented fashion. For it is NATO that is the best defense against Vladimir Putin and Russian aggression.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shepard-smith-gives-dark-warning-about-trumps-unprecedented-attacks-on-nato_us_5b46871ce4b022fdcc55c2bd
https://youtu.be/47fqjA8CwGE
Try my link a few posts above for a more up to date review of the situation with some of the evidence not being withheld.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1017348636966117376
Panic takes over
Still, this is the moment at which the EU will have to step up to fill the void by the US and UK vacating the world stage.