Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
There could be six by-elections won by the Lib-Dems and it wouldn't make any difference.
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party. Its activists are even more in favour. Nearly half of its MPs also supported Leave, and May depends on their support to stay in office. Even if she didn't, to do otherwise would lead to her downfall.
Unless the politics *within the Conservative Part* fundamentally change there will be no second referendum whilst they are still in office.
But, I agree. The Chequers Deal is acceptable. May needs to bank it, and demonstrate some quick wins ("freedom of action" policies, that it now releases the UK to do). Leavers should support it, and move on.
Our European relationship will never be steady-state, so, firstly, the Leave-in-principle battle must be won by actually Leaving with some quick wins.
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
There could be six by-elections won by the Lib-Dems and it wouldn't make any difference.
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party. Its activists are even more in favour. Nearly half of its MPs also supported Leave, and May depends on their support to stay in office. Even if she didn't, to do otherwise would lead to her downfall.
Unless the politics *within the Conservative Part* fundamentally change there will be no second referendum whilst they are still in office.
But, I agree. The Chequers Deal is acceptable. May needs to bank it, and demonstrate some quick wins ("freedom of action" policies, that it now releases the UK to do). Leavers should support it, and move on.
Our European relationship will never be steady-state, so, firstly, the Leave-in-principle battle must be won by actually Leaving with some quick wins.
Aren't you forgetting that the EU has not agreed the Chequers 'Deal'?
Amazing how, even now, Leavers forget that there are two parties to any future agreement with the EU.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I haven't read the comments but I understand they are hostile to Javid and Khan on account of them being Muslims. Yet neither of those could be seen as embodying the concerns that people have about Islam, either ideological or cultural.
Many of the comments skipped the Muslim bit, and went straight for skin colour.
One brown man didn't do a good job, so Javid shouldn't be Prime Minister.
And SeanT turned this to being about Islam. Because that's what he does.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
As an outsider I would think that it will continue to be a defining issue, but that an actual split will be avoided so long as we do leave in some fashion. The battle from next year for both parties will be how much farther will we diverge from the EU over time I would have thought - the no dealers seem concerned if we don't rip off the bikini wax all at once right now*, we will never do it, when I would think both main parties will adopt positions of maintaining the new status quo or decreasing it or increasing it or whatever, and that becomes the new dividing line.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
If May is feeling really bold, she'll do a Kinnock speech in the tone of her harangue to the police federation and tell the No Dealers where to go.
The analogy would be Kinnock's speech attacking Derek Hatton's Liverpool council. The difference is that Militant were a minority in the Labour party at that time. For May, she would be haranguing the majority of her members. That would end very swiftly and badly.
It is clear that she is not in charge of events but is just soldiering on hoping to cope with what arises. She will run out of road with her own party before too long.
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
There could be six by-elections won by the Lib-Dems and it wouldn't make any difference.
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party. Its activists are even more in favour. Nearly half of its MPs also supported Leave, and May depends on their support to stay in office. Even if she didn't, to do otherwise would lead to her downfall.
Unless the politics *within the Conservative Part* fundamentally change there will be no second referendum whilst they are still in office.
But, I agree. The Chequers Deal is acceptable. May needs to bank it, and demonstrate some quick wins ("freedom of action" policies, that it now releases the UK to do). Leavers should support it, and move on.
Our European relationship will never be steady-state, so, firstly, the Leave-in-principle battle must be won by actually Leaving with some quick wins.
As an aside, I think if it were 2:1 in favour of Remain, that would almost certainly mean that a majority of Conservative supporters also supported Remain. I'm arguing about a hypothetical - and highly unlikely - scenario.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
As an outsider I would think that it will continue to be a defining issue, but that an actual split will be avoided so long as we do leave in some fashion. The battle from next year for both parties will be how much farther will we diverge from the EU over time I would have thought - the no dealers seem concerned if we don't rip off the bikini wax all at once right now*, we will never do it, when I would think both main parties will adopt positions of maintaining the new status quo or decreasing it or increasing it or whatever, and that becomes the new dividing line.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
I think that is the least of their problems
May will be under huge pressure to make more concessions to the EU in the Autumn. And the crazies in the Tory constituency associations will equate concession with betrayal, or even treason. A deal will be an impossibility in that atmosphere.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Wouldn't lots of countries facing EU tariffs use the UK as an entry point into the EU if we reduced our tariffs? We want to control our borders and are then surprised when the EU insists on doing the same.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It might help if you didn't assume that people expressing distaste of obviously racist commentary (unless you think people calling Javid and Khan immigrants and assuming because of whatever racial or religious traits they share they would act in the same manner politically is not racist) was the same as people not accepting that a large swathe of British and European public opinion has concerns with the level of immigration from islamic countries.
It is quite easy to note that there are large numbers who do have those concerns, while still not being happy about that concern being hijacked by out and out racists. You won't fan many people more critical of Khan than Guido Fawkes I would bet, and on his site he's complained about 'obsessive racists who bore on about Sadiq Khan', because you can dislike things without getting racist.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
I think that is the least of their problems
May will be under huge pressure to make more concessions to the EU in the Autumn. And the crazies in the Tory constituency associations will equate concession with betrayal, or even treason. A deal will be an impossibility in that atmosphere.
We've sat the kids down and informed them of the order in which they're going to be eaten. We're ready for the end times.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Why do they have to wait until September? If there's a problem you act upon it, is there no provision for the 1922 committee to hold an extraordinary meeting if Graham Brady gets some emailed letters in?
The more time to have an actual contest, rather than an anointing, the better for the party and country I would think.
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party.
According to this poll 2/3rds of 2017 Tory voters would vote Leave in a second referendum, but we know that current Tory voters are less Brexity than they were in 2017 (probably due to swingback to UKIP).
Wouldn't lots of countries facing EU tariffs use the UK as an entry point into the EU if we reduced our tariffs? We want to control our borders and are then surprised when the EU insists on doing the same.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
I think that is the least of their problems
May will be under huge pressure to make more concessions to the EU in the Autumn. And the crazies in the Tory constituency associations will equate concession with betrayal, or even treason. A deal will be an impossibility in that atmosphere.
We've sat the kids down and informed them of the order in which they're going to be eaten. We're ready for the end times.
"Bet you are wishing you hadn't demanded all those fatty snacks now, aren't you Timmy?"
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Well, you are obviously much closer to it than I am. Do other Tory members on PB share your view I wonder?
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
I think that is the least of their problems
May will be under huge pressure to make more concessions to the EU in the Autumn. And the crazies in the Tory constituency associations will equate concession with betrayal, or even treason. A deal will be an impossibility in that atmosphere.
We've sat the kids down and informed them of the order in which they're going to be eaten. We're ready for the end times.
"Bet you are wishing you hadn't demanded all those fatty snacks now, aren't you Timmy?"
AIUI Chequers offered the EU a veto GOING FORWARD on UK social and employment law, so we wouldn't be able cut red tape, we couldn't make hiring and firing easier, the ECJ could prohibit us from reforming the economy, and deregulating, etc, AND we'd have NO SAY in any of it, and we'd have to adopt most of their laws - in the future - by default. Tell me if I am wrong. Please.
Chequers was arguably worse than the Swiss or Norwegian model.
As you say, I am amazed that Barnier didn't swallow it whole, and smack his lips, and burp, and say Merci.
My conviction is that this is now being driven by ultra Federalist ideologues in the Commission who want Britain to either become an obvious colony (and obviously, significantly poorer and less sovereign) or just get the hell out and suffer Crash Brexit, pour encourager les autres. They are seeing us an enemy. Which, to "the project", we are.
The UK is proposing it makes commitments on environment, state aid, anti-trust rules, climate change, social and employment, and consumer protection, and non-regression of labour standards. In other words, the floor the EU wants. I don't see that as a massive problem. The UK already exceeds EU standards in a number of areas there, and I don't sense much appetite in the UK to relax on too much social and employment legislation.
With respect to dispute resolution, the UK is proposing a joint UK-EU committee, including provisions that would allow both the UK and the EU to respond respond to unforeseen shocks, whether economic, social, environmental or security related. We are also insisting that disputes must respect the principle that the court of one party cannot resolve disputes between the two and must be by mutual consent. For example, referrals to the ECJ on interpretation of the common rulebook on goods and agriculture, but there could be other arbitration routes, including referral to the WTO.
The UK Parliament would have ultimate oversight of all changes in rules prior to it being brought into UK law via primary or secondary legislation. Ultimately, we could decide not to pass the legislation, but it would be in the knowledge that there would be consequences in terms of access. It's similar to the Swiss situation, to be honest.
That's just about acceptable to me. If it facilitates a deal, I'll take it. We can always revisit it 10-15 years down the line.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Well, you are obviously much closer to it than I am. Do other Tory members on PB share your view I wonder?
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party.
According to this poll 2/3rds of 2017 Tory voters would vote Leave in a second referendum, but we know that current Tory voters are less Brexity than they were in 2017 (probably due to swingback to UKIP).
Excluding the don't knows it's 71/29, which is a 10% swing to Leave since 2016.
The median Conservative voter is now a white 50 year old, on an average income, living in a small to medium sized town in the Midlands. Such a voter has no desire whatsoever to remain in the EU, does not care about the complaints of the City, and dislikes most of the consequences of globalisation.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
Everything of value since 1418 was done by white people.
People with skins of other colours have done nothing of value since 1418.
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
There could be six by-elections won by the Lib-Dems and it wouldn't make any difference.
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party. Its activists are even more in favour. Nearly half of its MPs also supported Leave, and May depends on their support to stay in office. Even if she didn't, to do otherwise would lead to her downfall.
Unless the politics *within the Conservative Part* fundamentally change there will be no second referendum whilst they are still in office.
But, I agree. The Chequers Deal is acceptable. May needs to bank it, and demonstrate some quick wins ("freedom of action" policies, that it now releases the UK to do). Leavers should support it, and move on.
Our European relationship will never be steady-state, so, firstly, the Leave-in-principle battle must be won by actually Leaving with some quick wins.
Aren't you forgetting that the EU has not agreed the Chequers 'Deal'?
Amazing how, even now, Leavers forget that there are two parties to any future agreement with the EU.
If you actually bothered to read my posts, you'd know the answer to that is no, I haven't forgotten.
I think it's a very good deal for the EU - and, in all honesty, I still think they're trying to decide what they think of it themselves - but it's very possible they overpush too far and we head straight for a mitigated no deal.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
As an outsider I would think that it will continue to be a defining issue, but that an actual split will be avoided so long as we do leave in some fashion. The battle from next year for both parties will be how much farther will we diverge from the EU over time I would have thought - the no dealers seem concerned if we don't rip off the bikini wax all at once right now*, we will never do it, when I would think both main parties will adopt positions of maintaining the new status quo or decreasing it or increasing it or whatever, and that becomes the new dividing line.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
Yep, I think that’s what will happen as well. And yeah, I didn’t need that mental image of JRM *vomits*
The issue that we have - and this was always going to be the case - is that everybody will use our turmoil as a way of getting an edge. We will be the desperate ones, and therefore we will need to accept less than is optimal.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
No. She will win by perhaps 200-100. Which will show that out of 650 MPs only 200 have confidence in the PM. It will be quite hard for her to carry on in those circumstances.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
Well for one it would remove the sword of damocles that has been hanging over her on that, or it would work - either way, a resolution to that issue, since the no dealers (and those who think this deal at least is bad) would then truly have to decide whether to torpedo it, and the person just confirmed as party leader, and therefore if to split. Odds are the position in the polls for the Tories will only worse for the rest of the year as more no dealers and others who are unhappy register their discontent, should a deal be reached. The Tories need to decide if they are committing to no deal, and if they want an early election or not - take a hit on the deal now, but a schedule GE gives time to recover. If no deal, and a poll recovery, an earlier GE is probably better.
But in fairness the EU are already torpedoing the plan, since the point below about the pressure from them for May to make more concessions is true, and May cannot agree to that.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
As an outsider I would think that it will continue to be a defining issue, but that an actual split will be avoided so long as we do leave in some fashion. The battle from next year for both parties will be how much farther will we diverge from the EU over time I would have thought - the no dealers seem concerned if we don't rip off the bikini wax all at once right now*, we will never do it, when I would think both main parties will adopt positions of maintaining the new status quo or decreasing it or increasing it or whatever, and that becomes the new dividing line.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
Yep, I think that’s what will happen as well. And yeah, I didn’t need that mental image of JRM *vomits*
AIUI Chequers offered the EU a veto GOING FORWARD on UK social and employment law, so we wouldn't be able cut red tape, we couldn't make hiring and firing easier, the ECJ could prohibit us from reforming the economy, and deregulating, etc, AND we'd have NO SAY in any of it, and we'd have to adopt most of their laws - in the future - by default. Tell me if I am wrong. Please.
Chequers was arguably worse than the Swiss or Norwegian model.
As you say, I am amazed that Barnier didn't swallow it whole, and smack his lips, and burp, and say Merci.
My conviction is that this is now being driven by ultra Federalist ideologues in the Commission who want Britain to either become an obvious colony (and obviously, significantly poorer and less sovereign) or just get the hell out and suffer Crash Brexit, pour encourager les autres. They are seeing us an enemy. Which, to "the project", we are.
The UK is proposing it makes commitments on environment, state aid, anti-trust rules, climate change, social and employment, and consumer protection, and non-regression of labour standards. In other words, the floor the EU wants. I don't see that as a massive problem. The UK already exceeds EU standards in a number of areas there, and I don't sense much appetite in the UK to relax on too much social and employment legislation.
With respect to dispute resolution, the UK is proposing a joint UK-EU committee, including provisions that would allow both the UK and the EU to respond respond to unforeseen shocks, whether economic, social, environmental or security related. We are also insisting that disputes must respect the principle that the court of one party cannot resolve disputes between the two and must be by mutual consent. For example, referrals to the ECJ on interpretation of the common rulebook on goods and agriculture, but there could be other arbitration routes, including referral to the WTO.
The UK Parliament would have ultimate oversight of all changes in rules prior to it being brought into UK law via primary or secondary legislation. Ultimately, we could decide not to pass the legislation, but it would be in the knowledge that there would be consequences in terms of access. It's similar to the Swiss situation, to be honest.
That's just about acceptable to me. If it facilitates a deal, I'll take it. We can always revisit it 10-15 years down the line.
As an aside, there is a joint EU-US trade dispute resolution system under the Transatlantic Council that worked very well until - ooohhhh - about a year ago. We could model the UK-EU one off that, although it would probably need slightly more teeth.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
As an outsider I would think that it will continue to be a defining issue, but that an actual split will be avoided so long as we do leave in some fashion. The battle from next year for both parties will be how much farther will we diverge from the EU over time I would have thought - the no dealers seem concerned if we don't rip off the bikini wax all at once right now*, we will never do it, when I would think both main parties will adopt positions of maintaining the new status quo or decreasing it or increasing it or whatever, and that becomes the new dividing line.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
Yep, I think that’s what will happen as well. And yeah, I didn’t need that mental image of JRM *vomits*
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Translation of the Hermetic Texts in the 1460s went a long way to kick-starting the Renaissance.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
No. She will win by perhaps 200-100. Which will show that out of 650 MPs only 200 have confidence in the PM. It will be quite hard for her to carry on in those circumstances.
She only has to win the majority of her MPs and a present likely 230 - 86
And remind me how many MPs have confidence in Corbyn
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I haven't read the comments but I understand they are hostile to Javid and Khan on account of them being Muslims. Yet neither of those could be seen as embodying the concerns that people have about Islam, either ideological or cultural.
Many of the comments skipped the Muslim bit, and went straight for skin colour.
One brown man didn't do a good job, so Javid shouldn't be Prime Minister.
And SeanT turned this to being about Islam. Because that's what he does.
Because that's what it IS. Derrr. It's all about Islam. I know Daily Mail commenters aren't the brightest, but that's what gets them going. Islam.
Only one of the eight or so comments mentioned Islam (technically it mentioned "mooslym" or somesuch). You decided to make it about Islam rather than about immigrants more generally, or about "brown" people.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
Shows what you can (or perhaps, could?) make off the back of a well-loved novel.
Sorry, been a long day parenting (a delightful day, too - a tour of Highgate Cemetery then a lovely picnic in Waterlow Park) I forget: ah, who is Nick Evans?!
Incidentally, we passed one incredible grave in Highgate Cemetery (West). No, not George Michael (tho he is there) - Alexander Litvinenko, the guy poisoned by Polonium. He's buried there.
I was, firstly, surprised that there are any new graves in the cemetery (turns out there are lots all the time), I was secondly surprised to find his family could afford a plot there. (It costs £20,000 minimum to be buried in Highgate West).
There is a new mauseolum near the entrance which some rich guy just erected for his wife and himself when they snuff it. Cost? £3m. A truly fascinating place.
Shows what you can (or perhaps, could?) make off the back of a well-loved novel.
Sorry, been a long day parenting (a delightful day, too - a tour of Highgate Cemetery then a lovely picnic in Waterlow Park) I forget: ah, who is Nick Evans?!
Incidentally, we passed one incredible grave in Highgate Cemetery (West). No, not George Michael (tho he is there) - Alexander Litvinenko, the guy poisoned by Polonium. He's buried there.
I was, firstly, surprised that there are any new graves in the cemetery (turns out there are lots all the time), I was secondly surprised to find his family could afford a plot there. (It costs £20,000 minimum to be buried in Highgate West).
There is a new mauseolum near the entrance which some rich guy just erected for his wife and himself when they snuff it. Cost? £3m. A truly fascinating place.
Did you take your daughter to see Karl Marx's grave? Somewhere near Ralph Miliband I believe.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
No. She will win by perhaps 200-100. Which will show that out of 650 MPs only 200 have confidence in the PM. It will be quite hard for her to carry on in those circumstances.
She only has to win the majority of her MPs and a present likely 230 - 86
And remind me how many MPs have confidence in Corbyn
The more relevant question is, assuming May is ousted (and if there are the numbers it should have been done by now) or her position made untenable enough to force a resignation, how many MPs would have confidence in her replacement?
It would presumably depend on what they were proposing to do. No deal might well see some improvement in the polls, but does not appear to have been the favoured position among MPs, and would a no dealer win? Even if it is someone proposing a deal but better (in some alternate universe where there is plenty of time) the no dealers would still not be happy with that, and would the numbers opposed to a hard brexit increase the rebels on the other side? So far they are relatively small in number, but a softer brexit is being offered which few of them are so committed to remain that that is an issue.
In short, some Tories seem to want to retain a series of polling leads despite undertaking a very contentious, emotional negotiation after 8 years in government (when I think being a bit behind even Corbyn would be expected in that circumstance and they should not panic), and also assume that even though no one has had the support or the stones to seek to topple May before now, when a no deal or hard brexiter takes over, all will be smooth sailing.
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
My wife is friends with a female Iraqi immigrant (very pretty, I might add - she's here because Saddam Hussein tried to execute her father; he escaped the night before on a tip-off a snatch squad was coming to get him) who's single, in her early 30s, wears Western clothes, drinks like a fish, and goes on Tinder most weekends. She also votes Conservative and supports Leave and has a crisp English accent. She has English friends a plenty, socialises with them and goes out with them.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
I dunno, are Tory associations really like that? My impression in general is that the local units of both parties are generally pretty mellow when talking to their MP (who they selected, after all), and try not to give them a hard time. There are counter-examples, like Kate Hoey and Vauxhall, but they've accepted a huge disjoint for yeats and it was only helping save the Tory government which finally tipped some into revolt.
That's why I've always taken the mandatory reselection stuff with a big grain of salt - generally, members just don't want it. Are Tories different?
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
Nope. I stand by every word. But.... really, is that white supremacism is, in your mind? Being proud of white, Judaeo-Christian, Euro-American western civilisation, which has (inarguably) delivered the freest and most advanced nations on the planet? Which put men on the moon?
If so I suggest at least half or more of white people are white supremacists, which rather dilutes your point.
Taking pride in societal achievements is not white supremacist.
Those advances were made at points in time by the people who were there. If, for example, we were going through the Enlightenment now (and boy do I wish we were sometimes) it is surely self-evident that leading lights of that progress would include members of our modern Muslim and other communities.
We must not allow our past and "White, Judaeo-Christian, Euro-American civilisation" to be bundled up into a group of unacceptables, say sorry and then move aside to let everyone else have a go. The development of civilisation should take the best ideas from everyone based on what works best - and if those continue to arise from our "White, Judaeo-Christian, Euro-American civilisation" we should not be ashamed of that. But lets have a Curry while we talk it over.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
I think there is a widespread feeling among Muslims living in the West that non-Muslims are viciously biased against them. Lady Warsi is a good example of that mindset.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy is pretty good on that.
Europe has never existed in a vacuum, and I think we can all agree that the roots of European civilization go back to both the Greeks and the Achaemenid Persians (suitably hellenized by Alexander's successors), by way of the Romans, Byzantines and the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates.
I've always been interested in Islamic and Asian history - one of history's tragedies was the destruction of the Islamic centres of learning by the Mongols, which I think destroyed any chance of a Persian led Renaissance. It's an interesting counterfactual (if you're interested in a science fiction take on an alternate history, Kim Stanley Robinson's 'The Years of Rice and Salt' is highly recommended - it assumes the Black Death was more virulent than historically so, and hence, no Europeans).
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
I've read the piece now, and see where Gin is coming from. But it's a bit thin - 7 chairmen out of 650 say they either won't accept the current deal or they won't accept one that goes further, and one member shouted at Gove. Perhaps it's representative, but I suspect they rang up lots of chairmen and we're hearing about the ones who didn't decline to comment.
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
Are Tories different?
They're evil, Nick - you call yourself a Labour man?!
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
No. She will win by perhaps 200-100. Which will show that out of 650 MPs only 200 have confidence in the PM. It will be quite hard for her to carry on in those circumstances.
She only has to win the majority of her MPs and a present likely 230 - 86
And remind me how many MPs have confidence in Corbyn
May's and Corbyn's positions within their respective parties are somewhat different though.
Theresa May can still command the support of the majority of her MPs (for now, and whether this is through actual loyalty or because they can't decide on a mutually agreeable successor is unclear.) But her party membership is heavily skewed to Leave (the Tory vote certainly is, too) and may be tiring of her.
Most Labour MPs, on the other hand, would love to be rid of Corbyn, but that's impossible because most of the party members love him. They have, of course, already revolted and failed, and it's now obvious that they're not willing to give in and quit the party, either. So their lack of confidence is largely irrelevant.
My reading of the present situation is that the more committed Tory Leavers won't attempt to defenestrate May unless they're desperate, but if they try and fail then have they anything left to lose by abandoning ship? If you're committed to the cause AND you think that half your activists and voters are about to give up on the Conservatives in disgust and sit on their hands or defect to Ukip, then surely you might contemplate rolling the dice and forming a new party?
If the only plan Mrs May has left to offer ends up being something that is flatly rejected by most Conservative members and a large chunk of the Conservative vote alike, then I can't see how she's meant to survive in office for very long.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
Translation of the Hermetic Texts by Cosimo Medici?
Europe has never existed in a vacuum, and I think we can all agree that the roots of European civilization go back to both the Greeks and the Achaemenid Persians (suitably hellenized by Alexander's successors), by way of the Romans, Byzantines and the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates.
I've always been interested in Islamic and Asian history - one of history's tragedies was the destruction of the Islamic centres of learning by the Mongols, which I think destroyed any chance of a Persian led Renaissance. It's an interesting counterfactual (if you're interested in a science fiction take on an alternate history, Kim Stanley Robinson's 'The Years of Rice and Salt' is highly recommended - it assumes the Black Death was more virulent than historically so, and hence, no Europeans).
Tbh John, I preferered the earlier post; it made it look like the wise words above were mine!
I'll be surprised if Theresa makes it to party conference (30th September)
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
That's bold! I suspect there's more chance of her leading the Tories into the next GE than being deposed before the conference.
The grass roots are in revolt.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
And what will that do. She will not lose a VNOC.
No. She will win by perhaps 200-100. Which will show that out of 650 MPs only 200 have confidence in the PM. It will be quite hard for her to carry on in those circumstances.
She only has to win the majority of her MPs and a present likely 230 - 86
And remind me how many MPs have confidence in Corbyn
May's and Corbyn's positions within their respective parties are somewhat different though.
Theresa May can still command the support of the majority of her MPs (for now, and whether this is through actual loyalty or because they can't decide on a mutually agreeable successor is unclear.) But her party membership is heavily skewed to Leave (the Tory vote certainly is, too) and may be tiring of her.
Most Labour MPs, on the other hand, would love to be rid of Corbyn, but that's impossible because most of the party members love him. They have, of course, already revolted and failed, and it's now obvious that they're not willing to give in and quit the party, either. So their lack of confidence is largely irrelevant.
My reading of the present situation is that the more committed Tory Leavers won't attempt to defenestrate May unless they're desperate, but if they try and fail then have they anything left to lose by abandoning ship? If you're committed to the cause AND you think that half your activists and voters are about to give up on the Conservatives in disgust and sit on their hands or defect to Ukip, then surely you might contemplate rolling the dice and forming a new party?
If the only plan Mrs May has left to offer ends up being something that is flatly rejected by most Conservative members and a large chunk of the Conservative vote alike, then I can't see how she's meant to survive in office for very long.
Some truth in that but she does not have a ready successor and who in their right mind would want to take on this mess
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
My wife is friends with a female Iraqi immigrant (very pretty, I might add - she's here because Saddam Hussein tried to execute her father; he escaped the night before on a tip-off a snatch squad was coming to get him) who's single, in her early 30s, wears Western clothes, drinks like a fish, and goes on Tinder most weekends. She also votes Conservative and supports Leave and has a crisp English accent. She has English friends a plenty, socialises with them and goes out with them.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
It is a liberal myth that there is a middle ground. Look at the muslim attitudes surveys. 50% think homosexuality should be illegal. 50% think about that in comparison to the rest of the UK population.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday t."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
Translation of the Hermetic Texts by Cosimo Medici?
I doubt if that was important.
I think that Europe benefitted from being politically fragmented at an important stage of its development (16th and 17th centuries) and from the fact that neither Protestants nor Catholics could defeat the other (so that nations had to accept religious differences de facto, even if they refused to accept them de jure.). It meant that ideas and heresies could flourish in a way that they could not in the great Islamic Empires or China.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
I think there is a widespread feeling among Muslims living in the West that non-Muslims are viciously biased against them. Lady Warsi is a good example of that mindset.
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday that led me to that conclusion:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Shows what you can (or perhaps, could?) make off the back of a well-loved novel.
Sorry, been a long day parenting (a delightful day, too - a tour of Highgate Cemetery then a lovely picnic in Waterlow Park) I forget: ah, who is Nick Evans?!
Incidentally, we passed one incredible grave in Highgate Cemetery (West). No, not George Michael (tho he is there) - Alexander Litvinenko, the guy poisoned by Polonium. He's buried there.
I was, firstly, surprised that there are any new graves in the cemetery (turns out there are lots all the time), I was secondly surprised to find his family could afford a plot there. (It costs £20,000 minimum to be buried in Highgate West).
There is a new mauseolum near the entrance which some rich guy just erected for his wife and himself when they snuff it. Cost? £3m. A truly fascinating place.
The Horse Whisperer....?
Ah!!!! Never read it. Should I? Is it good?
It's good in the sense of being a model for how to get rich from writing!
"The book was his debut novel, and gained significant success, becoming the 10th best selling novel in the United States in 1995, selling over 15 million copies. This also makes it one of the best-selling books of all time."
"Met Office Verified account @metoffice 3h3 hours ago
Cavendish in Suffolk and Weybourne in Norfolk both recorded the UK's highest temperature today, just 24.0 ºC - the first day in July 2018 that nowhere in the UK has reached 25 ºC or more!
The more relevant question is, assuming May is ousted (and if there are the numbers it should have been done by now) or her position made untenable enough to force a resignation, how many MPs would have confidence in her replacement?
It would presumably depend on what they were proposing to do. No deal might well see some improvement in the polls, but does not appear to have been the favoured position among MPs, and would a no dealer win? Even if it is someone proposing a deal but better (in some alternate universe where there is plenty of time) the no dealers would still not be happy with that, and would the numbers opposed to a hard brexit increase the rebels on the other side? So far they are relatively small in number, but a softer brexit is being offered which few of them are so committed to remain that that is an issue.
In short, some Tories seem to want to retain a series of polling leads despite undertaking a very contentious, emotional negotiation after 8 years in government (when I think being a bit behind even Corbyn would be expected in that circumstance and they should not panic), and also assume that even though no one has had the support or the stones to seek to topple May before now, when a no deal or hard brexiter takes over, all will be smooth sailing.
I suspect it will be many years before the Tories can look forward to "smooth sailing" again. This a party which has not won a working majority for 31 years, its declining numbers of members are old and many younger people see it as a conspiracy against them. Most people in politics, including many Tory MPs, regard their stewardship of the nation since 2015 as an unmitigated disaster. There is no easy path to recovery from here.
We often chat here about whether there's a European demos and how important it is to assert our identity. This puts the case for the way I think better than I usually manage:
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
It is a liberal myth that there is a middle ground. Look at the muslim attitudes surveys. 50% think homosexuality should be illegal. 50% think about that in comparison to the rest of the UK population.
One of my Muslim colleagues is definitely in the middle ground. He recently told me that he has no issues with gender equality but has religious reservations about LGBTQ which he has to work through - especially as one of his nephews is gay. He believes that there should be no state support for the Muslim Council of Britain as they are too radical and Islamic candidates for political office should sign a 21st Century equivalent of the Test Acts supporting British rule of law and democracy. I suggested that his position would be effectively normal in 1960's Britain if he swapped Muslim for Catholic/Irish. He laughed and pointed out that the Irish had the advantage that they could more easily fit in because they could drink alcohol. Then we agreed that our boss can be a right idiot. In all the ways that matter he's as British as I am.
I very much agree with those who say the party won't split over this anti-semitism row. Instead, some more of the decent and sane Labour MPs and supporters will drift off, disillusioned, like those who have already gone.
In electoral terms, it won't in itself have much of an impact, but there is a curious aspect to it which deserves more attention. This is the question of why Corbyn and his cabal haven't just shut down the issue, but instead seem intent on inflaming it. I really don't understand this, but it indicates at the very least an insouciance about turning friends and supporters into enemies. And if they're happy to throw away Jewish support (as well as the support of decent folk generally) for no advantage, who else are they going to alienate gratuitously?
The answer is that this is a quite deliberate attempt to get the right of the party to drift off, disillusioned so that they can increase their control of the party.
For the same reason, the hard left are currently boasting about being Communists (when they aren't). They're goading the right to leave.
Ian Austin is viewed by Corbynistas as a Blairite and they hate him.
Can't speak for all and some will feel that way but it is probably a bit more than that with him, after Woodcock he's probably the second worst, if you look at his twitter feed it is mostly him attacking either Labour, the left or the leadership. He hasn't got the profile of someone like Jess Phillips but he goes for it much more.
Comparing him to say Liz Kendall who is on the right of the party or others on the right and he comes up very short.
"More than 1.4 million young people would be eligible to vote in a fresh referendum compared with the 2016 Brexit poll, raising questions about the potential impact of this new cohort of voters.
Analysis of the census data shows the group who have come of age since the EU referendum now outnumbers the Leave side’s 1.26 million majority over Remain."
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
It is a liberal myth that there is a middle ground. Look at the muslim attitudes surveys. 50% think homosexuality should be illegal. 50% think about that in comparison to the rest of the UK population.
One of my Muslim colleagues is definitely in the middle ground. He recently told me that he has no issues with gender equality but has religious reservations about LGBTQ which he has to work through - especially as one of his nephews is gay. He believes that there should be no state support for the Muslim Council of Britain as they are too radical and Islamic candidates for political office should sign a 21st Century equivalent of the Test Acts supporting British rule of law and democracy. I suggested that his position would be effectively normal in 1960's Britain if he swapped Muslim for Catholic/Irish. He laughed and pointed out that the Irish had the advantage that they could more easily fit in because they could drink alcohol. Then we agreed that our boss can be a right idiot. In all the ways that matter he's as British as I am.
He is not in the middle ground he is on the liberal axis. What is the percentage view like hin 10%, 20%?
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday t."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
Translation of the Hermetic Texts by Cosimo Medici?
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Interestingly, that was *exactly* the criticism leveled at the Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre-WW2 - that their loyalties lay with international Jewry and not with their host nations. Indeed, I read a leader from a UK newspaper in the 1930s - I forget which paper - that argued that we shouldn't take any more Jewish refugees from Germany because they could never put their new country above their religion.
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
"More than 1.4 million young people would be eligible to vote in a fresh referendum compared with the 2016 Brexit poll, raising questions about the potential impact of this new cohort of voters.
Analysis of the census data shows the group who have come of age since the EU referendum now outnumbers the Leave side’s 1.26 million majority over Remain."
I'm guessing once you take out non voters and young remainers cancelled out by young leavers you've only got a 40% of that actually increasing the remain vote total.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly i
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
Er, OK. If pointing out electoral and polling FACTS makes me a white supremacist, then so is Mike Smithson and so is Professor John Curtice (peace be upon him)
It was your post on Wednesday t."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
I don't think asserting that the enlightenment and the ensuing Industrial & scientific revolution etc was primarily a European phenomenon is particularly controversial.
Nor do I. It's the focus on 'white' which I question. It overlooks, for example, the extent to which the advances of the Enlightenment were built on the back of the scientific, mathematic and other cultrual developments of the Islamic Golden Age...
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
To give an honest answer, I'd say that it's entirely correct that the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions had an immensely beneficial effect on living standards. We're now about 20 times better off than we were 250 years ago.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
Translation of the Hermetic Texts by Cosimo Medici?
I doubt if that was important.
I think that Europe benefitted from being politically fragmented at an important stage of its development (16th and 17th centuries) and from the fact that neither Protestants nor Catholics could defeat the other (so that nations had to accept religious differences de facto, even if they refused to accept them de jure.). It meant that ideas and heresies could flourish in a way that they could not in the great Islamic Empires or China.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
No, there’s a third kind: Muslims of varying degrees of observance from ultra-strict to not at all who just want get on with their lives and provide for themselves and their families. They are, of course, the vaat majority.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
I think there is a widespread feeling among Muslims living in the West that non-Muslims are viciously biased against them. Lady Warsi is a good example of that mindset.
They probably read the Daily Mail comments section. Nothing would make a Muslim more identify with other Muslims over the population at large more than reading those comments.
We often chat here about whether there's a European demos and how important it is to assert our identity. This puts the case for the way I think better than I usually manage:
That doesn't, of course, mean that his views command majority support. But they're worth listening to.
Outright rejection of national borders and the nation state itself would appear to be a not uncommon trend in parts of the Left. I interpret this as being rooted in an assertion of universalist principles: borders and nationality divide people into groups with different rights according to where they originate from and where they're currently located, which is perceived to be a form of discrimination and, therefore, to be rejected.
This is all very nice in theory, but it suggests a lack of understanding (or an unwillingness to accept) how real, flawed human beings - rather than idealised units - actually function in practice. National identity is very real, and it's part of most peoples' conception of themselves and of their lived experience.
Nearly all people will, to a greater or lesser extent, feel attachment to one or more communities on the basis of shared belief, or values, or culture, or ethnicity, or some combination of those things. Such communities include churches, political parties, cities - and countries. And we are bound to feel more affinity with people who belong to our communities than to those who do not. This doesn't have to be a negative - it doesn't mean we have to disregard or hate other people - but someone trying to wish this fact away because it doesn't fit their ideological image of how a non-existent, unachievable ideal ought to work is arguably both counter-productive and absurd.
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Interestingly, that was *exactly* the criticism leveled at the Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre-WW2 - that their loyalties lay with international Jewry and not with their host nations. Indeed, I read a leader from a UK newspaper in the 1930s - I forget which paper - that argued that we shouldn't take any more Jewish refugees from Germany because they could never put their new country above their religion.
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
You are making a different argument. Not to take immigrants because there views are different. Where as the argument in the Blackburn piece was they used to be British-Muslims but are now Muslim-British, which has changed from their immigrant parents views. The children were born here.
I don`t think a general election would be very helpful in settling our current problems with the EU. There may be two large blocks (Labour and Conservative) which most people vote against (even though it means voting for the other one). But on the EU these parties are themselves bitterly divided.
With our outdated voting system, there is pressure on people to vote one way or the other. But voting for a Conservative or a Labour candidate would say precisely nothing about what any one of us would like our relationship with the EU to be.
And on top of that there are so many strands of Leaving and Remaining. This was the problem with Mr Cameron`s original referendum.
On present form, I do not think either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party is fit to form a government. They need to come clean on their own programme first - but they can`t do so, either of them, because their real agenda is kept hidden.
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Interestingly, that was *exactly* the criticism leveled at the Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre-WW2 - that their loyalties lay with international Jewry and not with their host nations. Indeed, I read a leader from a UK newspaper in the 1930s - I forget which paper - that argued that we shouldn't take any more Jewish refugees from Germany because they could never put their new country above their religion.
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
You are making a different argument. Not to take immigrants because there views are different. Where as the argument in the Blackburn piece was they used to be British-Muslims but are now Muslim-British, which has changed from their immigrant parents views. The children were born here.
We are all a bundle of identities: religion, nationality, clan, profession, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. And we all order and rate them in different ways.
Being British is part of who I am. But it is by no means the dominant part. Anyone who is highly religious will probably put their religion up around, and sometimes above, their nationality. I have orthodox Jewish friends (extremely frum ones), who would definitely choose to keep Jewish over British if forced to make a choice. And there are many, many Muslims who choose to identify more with Islam than the UK. But then there are also people like a former colleague of mine (whose only Muslim trait is that he won't eat pork), who would place their notional religion below their football team.
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Interestingly, that was *exactly* the criticism leveled at the Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre-WW2 - that their loyalties lay with international Jewry and not with their host nations. Indeed, I read a leader from a UK newspaper in the 1930s - I forget which paper - that argued that we shouldn't take any more Jewish refugees from Germany because they could never put their new country above their religion.
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
You are making a different argument. Not to take immigrants because there views are different. Where as the argument in the Blackburn piece was they used to be British-Muslims but are now Muslim-British, which has changed from their immigrant parents views. The children were born here.
We are all a bundle of identities: religion, nationality, clan, profession, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. And we all order and rate them in different ways.
Being British is part of who I am. But it is by no means the dominant part. Anyone who is highly religious will probably put their religion up around, and sometimes above, their nationality. I have orthodox Jewish friends (extremely frum ones), who would definitely choose to keep Jewish over British if forced to make a choice. And there are many, many Muslims who choose to identify more with Islam than the UK. But then there are also people like a former colleague of mine (whose only Muslim trait is that he won't eat pork), who would place their notional religion below their football team.
I live in Scotland. The team and religion seem to be synonymous up here
There was a link earlier today concerning Blackburn. There they stated that they did not identify as British-Muslims but as Muslim-Britons. Religion before country. They will listen to an Iman in Pakistan before the UK Govt. Very worrying.
Interestingly, that was *exactly* the criticism leveled at the Jews in Eastern Europe in the pre-WW2 - that their loyalties lay with international Jewry and not with their host nations. Indeed, I read a leader from a UK newspaper in the 1930s - I forget which paper - that argued that we shouldn't take any more Jewish refugees from Germany because they could never put their new country above their religion.
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
I don't think that accurate concerning pre war Jewry, at least in mainland Europe. Most British jews arrived following the late 19th Century Czarist pogroms, hence they were from observant Shtetl towns. The longer established Jewish Communities in West an Central Europe, much less so.
Indeed there was much anxiety in pre war central European Jewry that they were going to become extinct as a culture through assimilation. This little book is a fascinating evocation of how it used to be:
Paradoxically I don't think Corbyn or most of the LP pp want a General Election. Sure the CLP's are gearing up and prepared to run, but they will not want a GE either.
So let's see, the LP MP's don't want one in case they actually win, which means they will be the ones landed with Brexit, and the disaster that it will entail to any party in power at that time. Far better to let the Tories commit Hari Kiri (yes, I know Seppuko is more correct, but somehow, the slang "belly slitting" is more appropriate) and not be in power for maybe another 2 or 3 elections.
The clp's and many in the membership don't want one because that will mean they will have to support a sitting MP who doesn't represent them for another 5 years. Too many LP MP's were elected under the New Labour purple banner and have not realised, or choose to ignore the reality that the party membership has changed to a True Labour Red Flag . There is, as many in the party suspect, going to be another attempt at a coup this autumn. The usual suspects are preparing the ground (and the media) for their attempt. Many in the membership are waiting for the proof of disloyalty to the leadership to request the NEC permission to deselect and remove membership rights of sitting LP MP's and allow the selection of new candidates who more accurately represent the ideals of the local members .
But circumstances change. If TMay is deposed this autumn, as many are now predicting, then there will almost certainly have to be a GE. For the tories to attempt to carry on with out one, will cause chaos. The DUP will almost certainly try and wring new concessions which no new PM could give without causing a tremendous outrage and backlash.
Whichever way you consider it, I don't think it will be alright on the night, or even the 29th of March 2019.
We often chat here about whether there's a European demos and how important it is to assert our identity. This puts the case for the way I think better than I usually manage:
That doesn't, of course, mean that his views command majority support. But they're worth listening to.
Outright rejection of national borders and the nation state itself would appear to be a not uncommon trend in parts of the Left. I interpret this as being rooted in an assertion of universalist principles: borders and nationality divide people into groups with different rights according to where they originate from and where they're currently located, which is perceived to be a form of discrimination and, therefore, to be rejected.
This is all very nice in theory, but it suggests a lack of understanding (or an unwillingness to accept) how real, flawed human beings - rather than idealised units - actually function in practice. National identity is very real, and it's part of most peoples' conception of themselves and of their lived experience.
Nearly all people will, to a greater or lesser extent, feel attachment to one or more communities on the basis of shared belief, or values, or culture, or ethnicity, or some combination of those things. Such communities include churches, political parties, cities - and countries. And we are bound to feel more affinity with people who belong to our communities than to those who do not. This doesn't have to be a negative - it doesn't mean we have to disregard or hate other people - but someone trying to wish this fact away because it doesn't fit their ideological image of how a non-existent, unachievable ideal ought to work is arguably both counter-productive and absurd.
You're right that his views aren't representative of most. He doesn't say they are, and in quoting him above I explicitly said I wasn't saying that. You don't have to feel the same way, merely accept that many of us do.
The question isn't who we feel affinity to, though frankly I feel much closer to, say, Bernie Sanders than to SeanT. The issue is whether we make that sense of affilation trump the idea of fairness.
Comments
Almost three-quarters of its voters support Brexit: it is now the Brexit party. Its activists are even more in favour. Nearly half of its MPs also supported Leave, and May depends on their support to stay in office. Even if she didn't, to do otherwise would lead to her downfall.
Unless the politics *within the Conservative Part* fundamentally change there will be no second referendum whilst they are still in office.
But, I agree. The Chequers Deal is acceptable. May needs to bank it, and demonstrate some quick wins ("freedom of action" policies, that it now releases the UK to do). Leavers should support it, and move on.
Our European relationship will never be steady-state, so, firstly, the Leave-in-principle battle must be won by actually Leaving with some quick wins.
More likely the conference will be all about "anointing" a new leader...
Amazing how, even now, Leavers forget that there are two parties to any future agreement with the EU.
One brown man didn't do a good job, so Javid shouldn't be Prime Minister.
And SeanT turned this to being about Islam. Because that's what he does.
*you are all welcome for the mental image of JRM getting a bikini wax
It is clear that she is not in charge of events but is just soldiering on hoping to cope with what arises. She will run out of road with her own party before too long.
MP's will be spending the Summer having people yelling at them (down the phone, in emails, in person) When they get back to Westminster at the start of September they'll have to get the letters in to the 1922 or they won't have a party left in short order...
It is quite easy to note that there are large numbers who do have those concerns, while still not being happy about that concern being hijacked by out and out racists. You won't fan many people more critical of Khan than Guido Fawkes I would bet, and on his site he's complained about 'obsessive racists who bore on about Sadiq Khan', because you can dislike things without getting racist.
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Happy to retract and apologise if you tell me I have misunderstood you.
The more time to have an actual contest, rather than an anointing, the better for the party and country I would think.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h8fq3xim2u/TimesResults_180726_SecondReferendum_w.pdf
With respect to dispute resolution, the UK is proposing a joint UK-EU committee, including provisions that would allow both the UK and the EU to respond respond to unforeseen shocks, whether economic, social, environmental or security related. We are also insisting that disputes must respect the principle that the court of one party cannot resolve disputes between the two and must be by mutual consent. For example, referrals to the ECJ on interpretation of the common rulebook on goods and agriculture, but there could be other arbitration routes, including referral to the WTO.
The UK Parliament would have ultimate oversight of all changes in rules prior to it being brought into UK law via primary or secondary legislation. Ultimately, we could decide not to pass the legislation, but it would be in the knowledge that there would be consequences in terms of access. It's similar to the Swiss situation, to be honest.
That's just about acceptable to me. If it facilitates a deal, I'll take it. We can always revisit it 10-15 years down the line.
The median Conservative voter is now a white 50 year old, on an average income, living in a small to medium sized town in the Midlands. Such a voter has no desire whatsoever to remain in the EU, does not care about the complaints of the City, and dislikes most of the consequences of globalisation.
People with skins of other colours have done nothing of value since 1418.
Care to retract?
I think it's a very good deal for the EU - and, in all honesty, I still think they're trying to decide what they think of it themselves - but it's very possible they overpush too far and we head straight for a mitigated no deal.
But in fairness the EU are already torpedoing the plan, since the point below about the pressure from them for May to make more concessions is true, and May cannot agree to that.
And remind me how many MPs have confidence in Corbyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
(Edit: and Sunil has provided another example; there are lots more.)
But tbh I'm not going to convince Sean and he's not going to convince me.
When the NZ government objects the the WTO it may be significant.
It would presumably depend on what they were proposing to do. No deal might well see some improvement in the polls, but does not appear to have been the favoured position among MPs, and would a no dealer win? Even if it is someone proposing a deal but better (in some alternate universe where there is plenty of time) the no dealers would still not be happy with that, and would the numbers opposed to a hard brexit increase the rebels on the other side? So far they are relatively small in number, but a softer brexit is being offered which few of them are so committed to remain that that is an issue.
In short, some Tories seem to want to retain a series of polling leads despite undertaking a very contentious, emotional negotiation after 8 years in government (when I think being a bit behind even Corbyn would be expected in that circumstance and they should not panic), and also assume that even though no one has had the support or the stones to seek to topple May before now, when a no deal or hard brexiter takes over, all will be smooth sailing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-29225327
I'd expect many fans off Skyrim would see the appeal.
All three Abrahamic religions have a fundamentalist problem. Because Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion their fundies are mostly an internal issue and rarely come to the notice of outsiders. Christian fundies operate mainly under the radar, partly because we, the moderate and non-observant Christians tend to dismiss them as “religious loonies”, until we discover, for instance here in the US, that they have a
major political party under their thrall. The Muslim fundies are so prominent partly because we helped fund them, in Afghanistan and by choosing the wrong bunch of hereditary dictators to back in Arabia, and partly because they can exploit, with little difficulty, a feeling that all Muslims are being targetted by the West.
That was largely an achievement of white Europeans. But, that was also a fluke. There is no reason why Chinese, or Ottomans, or Iranians could not have achieved the same results, but somehow, they didn't.
That's why I've always taken the mandatory reselection stuff with a big grain of salt - generally, members just don't want it. Are Tories different?
Those advances were made at points in time by the people who were there. If, for example, we were going through the Enlightenment now (and boy do I wish we were sometimes) it is surely self-evident that leading lights of that progress would include members of our modern Muslim and other communities.
We must not allow our past and "White, Judaeo-Christian, Euro-American civilisation" to be bundled up into a group of unacceptables, say sorry and then move aside to let everyone else have a go. The development of civilisation should take the best ideas from everyone based on what works best - and if those continue to arise from our "White, Judaeo-Christian, Euro-American civilisation" we should not be ashamed of that. But lets have a Curry while we talk it over.
Blockquote meltdown...
Europe has never existed in a vacuum, and I think we can all agree that the roots of European civilization go back to both the Greeks and the Achaemenid Persians (suitably hellenized by Alexander's successors), by way of the Romans, Byzantines and the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates.
I've always been interested in Islamic and Asian history - one of history's tragedies was the destruction of the Islamic centres of learning by the Mongols, which I think destroyed any chance of a Persian led Renaissance. It's an interesting counterfactual (if you're interested in a science fiction take on an alternate history, Kim Stanley Robinson's 'The Years of Rice and Salt' is highly recommended - it assumes the Black Death was more virulent than historically so, and hence, no Europeans).
Theresa May can still command the support of the majority of her MPs (for now, and whether this is through actual loyalty or because they can't decide on a mutually agreeable successor is unclear.) But her party membership is heavily skewed to Leave (the Tory vote certainly is, too) and may be tiring of her.
Most Labour MPs, on the other hand, would love to be rid of Corbyn, but that's impossible because most of the party members love him. They have, of course, already revolted and failed, and it's now obvious that they're not willing to give in and quit the party, either. So their lack of confidence is largely irrelevant.
My reading of the present situation is that the more committed Tory Leavers won't attempt to defenestrate May unless they're desperate, but if they try and fail then have they anything left to lose by abandoning ship? If you're committed to the cause AND you think that half your activists and voters are about to give up on the Conservatives in disgust and sit on their hands or defect to Ukip, then surely you might contemplate rolling the dice and forming a new party?
If the only plan Mrs May has left to offer ends up being something that is flatly rejected by most Conservative members and a large chunk of the Conservative vote alike, then I can't see how she's meant to survive in office for very long.
50% think homosexuality should be illegal.
50% think about that in comparison to the rest of the UK population.
I think that Europe benefitted from being politically fragmented at an important stage of its development (16th and 17th centuries) and from the fact that neither Protestants nor Catholics could defeat the other (so that nations had to accept religious differences de facto, even if they refused to accept them de jure.). It meant that ideas and heresies could flourish in a way that they could not in the great Islamic Empires or China.
"The book was his debut novel, and gained significant success, becoming the 10th best selling novel in the United States in 1995, selling over 15 million copies. This also makes it one of the best-selling books of all time."
Verified account @metoffice
3h3 hours ago
Cavendish in Suffolk and Weybourne in Norfolk both recorded the UK's highest temperature today, just 24.0 ºC - the first day in July 2018 that nowhere in the UK has reached 25 ºC or more!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/national-identity-fake-toxic-intolerance-italy-fascism
That doesn't, of course, mean that his views command majority support. But they're worth listening to.
Comparing him to say Liz Kendall who is on the right of the party or others on the right and he comes up very short.
Analysis of the census data shows the group who have come of age since the EU referendum now outnumbers the Leave side’s 1.26 million majority over Remain."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-latest-young-voters-second-referendum-remain-poll-a8467631.html
The funny thing that no-one talks about is that WW2 and the Holocaust were such traumatic events for European Jews that they moved to assimilate much more than they did pre-War. In the 1920s, the majority of Jews sent their kids to religious rather than secular schools. In 1960, it was almost unknown.
Royal Leamington Spa may look like a peaceful patch of middle England but anger is rising"
https://www.ft.com/content/b337d052-8e5b-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421
This is all very nice in theory, but it suggests a lack of understanding (or an unwillingness to accept) how real, flawed human beings - rather than idealised units - actually function in practice. National identity is very real, and it's part of most peoples' conception of themselves and of their lived experience.
Nearly all people will, to a greater or lesser extent, feel attachment to one or more communities on the basis of shared belief, or values, or culture, or ethnicity, or some combination of those things. Such communities include churches, political parties, cities - and countries. And we are bound to feel more affinity with people who belong to our communities than to those who do not. This doesn't have to be a negative - it doesn't mean we have to disregard or hate other people - but someone trying to wish this fact away because it doesn't fit their ideological image of how a non-existent, unachievable ideal ought to work is arguably both counter-productive and absurd.
With our outdated voting system, there is pressure on people to vote one way or the other. But voting for a Conservative or a Labour candidate would say precisely nothing about what any one of us would like our relationship with the EU to be.
And on top of that there are so many strands of Leaving and Remaining. This was the problem with Mr Cameron`s original referendum.
On present form, I do not think either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party is fit to form a government. They need to come clean on their own programme first - but they can`t do so, either of them, because their real agenda is kept hidden.
Being British is part of who I am. But it is by no means the dominant part. Anyone who is highly religious will probably put their religion up around, and sometimes above, their nationality. I have orthodox Jewish friends (extremely frum ones), who would definitely choose to keep Jewish over British if forced to make a choice. And there are many, many Muslims who choose to identify more with Islam than the UK. But then there are also people like a former colleague of mine (whose only Muslim trait is that he won't eat pork), who would place their notional religion below their football team.
Indeed there was much anxiety in pre war central European Jewry that they were going to become extinct as a culture through assimilation. This little book is a fascinating evocation of how it used to be:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-eve-the-jews-of-europe-before-the-second-world-war-by-bernard-wasserstein/2012/08/31/ad4b5070-b19d-11e1-b6a5-3e85e7238c64_story.html?utm_term=.eb89003109e9
So let's see, the LP MP's don't want one in case they actually win, which means they will be the ones landed with Brexit, and the disaster that it will entail to any party in power at that time. Far better to let the Tories commit Hari Kiri (yes, I know Seppuko is more correct, but somehow, the slang "belly slitting" is more appropriate) and not be in power for maybe another 2 or 3 elections.
The clp's and many in the membership don't want one because that will mean they will have to support a sitting MP who doesn't represent them for another 5 years. Too many LP MP's were elected under the New Labour purple banner and have not realised, or choose to ignore the reality that the party membership has changed to a True Labour Red Flag . There is, as many in the party suspect, going to be another attempt at a coup this autumn. The usual suspects are preparing the ground (and the media) for their attempt. Many in the membership are waiting for the proof of disloyalty to the leadership to request the NEC permission to deselect and remove membership rights of sitting LP MP's and allow the selection of new candidates who more accurately represent the ideals of the local members .
But circumstances change. If TMay is deposed this autumn, as many are now predicting, then there will almost certainly have to be a GE. For the tories to attempt to carry on with out one, will cause chaos. The DUP will almost certainly try and wring new concessions which no new PM could give without causing a tremendous outrage and backlash.
Whichever way you consider it, I don't think it will be alright on the night, or even the 29th of March 2019.
The question isn't who we feel affinity to, though frankly I feel much closer to, say, Bernie Sanders than to SeanT. The issue is whether we make that sense of affilation trump the idea of fairness.
July 29 2018, 12:01am, The Sunday Times
Qatar has no right to host the 2022 World Cup"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qatar-has-no-right-to-host-the-2022-world-cup-q3smgt6sm