Congratulations to Prime Minister Tsipras. Let us hope for the sake of your people they can go without another election for a few years.
Though given the electoral chaos in the past few years, and to permit a terrible joke, might there not be a chance for a new party of 'Old Democracy' to sweep to popularity?
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
I think there is an opportunity for the Illiberals and the Undemocratic Party. Or even the Scottish Regionalist Party.
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.
But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).
As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I think this is a perfectly valid question without a certain answer, not least because time changes things. However one thing is screamingly obvious, there is risk and the safest way of dealing with that risk is to take things slowly. The worst way of dealing with that risk is the Merkel solution. What a bloody stupid woman she has turned out to be
On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.
While the prize for most reassuringly misleading goes to...
wait for it...
drum roll...
the Conservatives
Corbyn seems to think putting 'People' in front of everything makes it easily sellable indeed probably magically perfect. The time to worry I suppose is when he starts talking about People's Democracy. We know it will not benefit the people and it will not be democratic.
More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
A pity that Democrats 66 didn't form 3 years later.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.
But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).
As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.
There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.
We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed
Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.
While the prize for most reassuringly misleading goes to...
wait for it...
drum roll...
the Conservatives
Corbyn seems to think putting 'People' in front of everything makes it easily sellable indeed probably magically perfect. The time to worry I suppose is when he starts talking about People's Democracy. We know it will not benefit the people and it will not be democratic.
I am a little surprised that Corbyn has not read enough Anarcho-syndicalist tracts to be familiar with Bakunin's observation:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick"
The leading party of government on the Danish right is called Left. The centrist moderates are called the Radical Left. They are so centrist and moderate that both their left wing and their right wing split off in the last 10 years, leaving only the centrist centrists in the Radical Left. There was a Right but they are now Conservatives. There is a Unity List which for no good reason chose as its English translation the Red-Green Alliance.
More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave in indignation. All of the above cannot hold a candle to the Official Monster Raving Looney Party - it is the biggest tent possible.
More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
Other fun ones are the Left in Denmark, who are the main conservative party, the Radical Left, who are roughly like the SDP but with added pacifism, and the Liberal Democrats in Russia, who are a party led by an illberal demagogue.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict that ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
5.5 % is excellent for KKE and is a vote for inclusive politics.The 7.29% for Golden Dawn is still too high but indicates they are on the way down in the Greek peoples' minds.
GD now seem to be on 7.03%, but got 6.9% last time out.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave in indignation. All of the above cannot hold a candle to the Official Monster Raving Looney Party - it is the biggest tent possible.
Sadly as event after event after event has unfolded it is clear he cast his chosen net nothing nearly wide enough.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
The most inappropriate party name may be the Chinese Communist Party.
I've seen someone suggest Chinese National Party would be more appropriate for their current stances, but for historical reasons of how the modern nation came to be formed that would clearly not work.
Advantage Syriza. Golden Dawn seat now in the mix.
5 Remainder seats available 0.999 Union of Centrists 0.747 Independent Greeks 0.719 Golden Dawn 0.708 River 0.691 Syriza 0.634 Communists 0.491 ND 0.010 PASOK
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Birmingham is a phoenix. Every few decades the city centre is destroyed and born again. Sometimes they get it right, this seems to be one of those times.
(Note for SeanT: looks ripe for conversion to a mosque...)
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
I wouldn't put it down to religion so much as groups with interests/an identity/views that are counter to the aims of the host country. Nothing wrong with pursuing a different religion in private so long as your fundamental loyalty lies with the sovereign.
The danger comes not when the group itself rises up (always unlikely they would win), but when an outside power decides to use them as a pretext and attack you to 'defend the rights' of the minority. A very old tactic of power politics.
I see Paul Mason has strapped himself into his the rising left space rocket, like he did at the last Greek election...and when Hollande got it....and when Ed was moving left.... Bless him.
He's very miffed Dave got a majority without him isn't he.
I do wonder if there was much rewriting in places - while it looks like it still lays into Cameron, the fact Cameron is now seen as a winner, not a two time failure (as I'm sure he would have been, however fairly, if he'd only managed to be largest party again), must surely have led to a few shifts in tone or stated interpretation of the man - things that would have been held up as examples of where Cameron went wrong, but which in the end did not in fact hold him back.
BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!
I saw an old East Coast line train with carriages in a siding on the Liverpool street - Colchester line a week or so ago - I immediately thought of you!
I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.
But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).
As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.
There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.
We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed
= you're a coward.
Why? There is more persuasion in moderation than a febrile rant
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!
Saw the Red Arrows whilst with the little-un in the park fly directly overhead in V formation, probably away from Duxford. They were followed a few minutes later by six or seven Spitfires and, I think, a Hurricane.
Heaven.
Although the little 'un paid no attention to any of them. I'm going to have to train him better ...
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
Though rather inconveniently the main obstacle to Scottish independence are the 55% of Scots who voted against it, in their once in a generation vote on the matter.
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!
I saw an old East Coast line train with carriages in a siding on the Liverpool street - Colchester line a week or so ago - I immediately thought of you!
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don'tden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
You can't buck history.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
I agree. The Scottish independence issue is, I believe, considerably aided by the rest of the UK really not giving a damn, despite all of the protestations of politicians. Out damn spot!
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?
I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.
Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Nothing need be 'done'. Scottish people are very wise. They have rejected independence but embraced the SNP. An excellent strategy, and if given the opportunity they will do precisely the same again.
BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!
Saw the Red Arrows whilst with the little-un in the park fly directly overhead in V formation, probably away from Duxford. They were followed a few minutes later by six or seven Spitfires and, I think, a Hurricane.
Heaven.
Although the little 'un paid no attention to any of them. I'm going to have to train him better ...
Didn't see the Red Arrows, only the WW2 era planes, six of them.
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
a
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:
I had to google 'qoqzaz' from that map, as that is a seriously distinctive (not to mention impossible to Scrabble) name, with a fairly interesting piece from god knows who trying to figure out if the map could possibly be real (and concluding it makes no sense), and I really really had hoped 'qoqzaz' would be real (supposedly that part is close, but I've no way of knowing).
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
a
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:
I had to google 'qoqzaz' from that map, as that is a seriously distinctive (not to mention impossible to Scrabble) name, with a fairly interesting piece from god knows who trying to figure out if the map could possibly be real (and concluding it makes no sense), and I really really had hoped 'qoqzaz' would be real (supposedly that part is close, but I've no way of knowing).
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.
Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
Ilford North for one!
Ah but that is another thing... There are several religions over 5% in ilford North... The problem is when there is one dominant religion and one insurgent. Spreading it around is a way of stopping trouble
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don'tden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.
They've fixed the wrong bit ...
No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
Are the platforms still infeasibly narrow?
The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.
Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti ahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
No because there are no places where those religions have gone from being 0% to 5-10% of a population in a generation. I contend if there were, there would be
I believe that's 5 elections in 6 years in Greece, all that money, all that effort, no progress at all beyond sabre rattling. What a basket case of a country, why don't they grow a pair, leave the EU, go back to the drachma and start again instead of whining and blaming everybody else.
I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.
They've fixed the wrong bit ...
No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
Are the platforms still infeasibly narrow?
The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.
Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
This is the old main entrance (c/o yours truly!), dating from 2009:
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti ahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
No because there are no places where those religions have gone from being 0% to 5-10% of a population in a generation. I contend if there were, there would be
I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.
They've fixed the wrong bit ...
No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
Are the platforms still infeasibly narrow?
The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.
Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
This is the old main entrance (c/o yours truly!), dating from 2009:
The only time if been to Birmingham New Street was while changing trains. I remember the platform being underground, and it was dark and dreary. Truly horrible.
Perhaps I was recovering from a stonking hangover at the time.
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
I get Ashcroft's beef, but what is his agenda? Why is he doing this now - and who benefits?
Does Ashcroft have the same contempt for Osborne?
Most importantly - from a betting perspective - which potential successor will get the good lords backing?
OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism ·
The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
In Leicester! As well as Wolverhampton, Southall, Neasden etc. I agree not nationally but very significant and peaceful presences in many parts of the country.
I think that the reason that Islamic extremism is such a problem is intrinsic to Islam. The Koran is believed to be the recitation of the word of Allah, so cannot be ignored when it says that killing unbelievers is fine and dandy, as is slave trading.
Ouch. Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book. Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
I get Ashcroft's beef, but what is his agenda? Why is he doing this now - and who benefits?
Des Ashcroft have the same contempt for Osborne?
He got his opinion polling for the GE so catastrophically wrong?
Ruining my ELBOW in the process! (though to be fair, the other pollsters weren't that great either!)
Comments
Chance of them losing a seat to the Commies (who've just lost one to the River)...
Though given the electoral chaos in the past few years, and to permit a terrible joke, might there not be a chance for a new party of 'Old Democracy' to sweep to popularity?
On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.
I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.
Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
<1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine
1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland
2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain
4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom
5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland
10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
One country very near Britain has as its leading parties the Clan of the Gael, the Warband of Destiny, and Ourselves.
Eligible remainders
0.87 Golden Dawn
0.77 Independent Greeks
0.63 Syriza
0.62 River
0.50 Communists
0.47 ND
0.08 PASOK
0.05 Union of Centrists
wait for it...
drum roll...
the Conservatives
But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).
As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
*figuratively
0.77 Independent Greeks
0.68 River
0.58 ND
0.56 Syriza
0.50 Communists
0.06 PASOK
0.02 Union of Centrists
Israel 16% ('67 borders)
India 14%
Philippines 10%
Sri Lanka 10%
Thailand 5%
China 2%
River in danger too.
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick"
Mikhail Bakunin
Re: "Madness? This is Syrizia!"
It looks to me that Sparta is one of the regions that voted ND, Syrizia was too mad even for them!
"Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"
In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.
This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)
One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.
We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
Golden Dawn seat now in the mix.
5 Remainder seats available
0.999 Union of Centrists
0.747 Independent Greeks
0.719 Golden Dawn
0.708 River
0.691 Syriza
0.634 Communists
0.491 ND
0.010 PASOK
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.
Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
(Note for SeanT: looks ripe for conversion to a mosque...)
The danger comes not when the group itself rises up (always unlikely they would win), but when an outside power decides to use them as a pretext and attack you to 'defend the rights' of the minority. A very old tactic of power politics.
Bless him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.
But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).
As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.
There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.
We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed
= you're a coward.
Why? There is more persuasion in moderation than a febrile rant
The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.
Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
Also Blackfriars seemed to have been free yesterday (coin slots not working).
The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
Heaven.
Although the little 'un paid no attention to any of them. I'm going to have to train him better ...
http://pamelagellercom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/is.jpeg
Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book.
Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
They've fixed the wrong bit ...
Arriva Trains Wales
Cross Country
London Midland
Virgin Trains
Anyone think of a route served by more than four operators?
And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
oh
The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.
Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birmingham_New_Street_stn_building.JPG?uselang=en-gb
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birmingham_New_Street_eastern_entrance.JPG?uselang=en-gb
Perhaps I was recovering from a stonking hangover at the time.
Does Ashcroft have the same contempt for Osborne?
Most importantly - from a betting perspective - which potential successor will get the good lords backing?
I think that the reason that Islamic extremism is such a problem is intrinsic to Islam. The Koran is believed to be the recitation of the word of Allah, so cannot be ignored when it says that killing unbelievers is fine and dandy, as is slave trading.
Ruining my ELBOW in the process! (though to be fair, the other pollsters weren't that great either!)