We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Anti-Semitic apologist for terrorists voted Mayor of London, again

Following in the foetid footsteps of Ken Livingston, as expected it looks almost certain that racist judenhass Sadiq Khan has won against Zac Goldsmith. In other words, the Labour Party’s best buddy of a who’s who of islamofascism, has beaten the château bottled shit on the far left green lunatic fringe of the Tory Party, all with the blessings of that shrewd political operator, David Cameron. The Evil Party faced the Stupid Party, and the Evil Party won.

It is a bit like the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump contest across the puddle, writ very small and without anyone getting their hands on nuclear weapons: the two parties competing to see which of them could run a more loathsome candidate.

69 comments to Anti-Semitic apologist for terrorists voted Mayor of London, again

  • Mr Ed

    Mr Goldsmith has a tinge of Euroscepticism about him. He may have some other good points.

    The post of Mayor of London is wholly unnecessary. I write this within the City with its Lord Mayor.

  • Not sure loathsome’s quite the right word.

    I personally would go for repellent and it applies to both the racist Sadiq Khan and the EcoTwat Zac Goldsmith.

    It shows nothing but contempt for the voters, which is appropriate really, because most voters have nothing but contempt for them as well.

    As for David Cameron, the sooner that fool is ousted, the better. Even BoJo the Clown would be preferable.

  • NickM

    I second JG. Goldsmith is not so much loathsome as utterly incompetent and ran a shockingly bad campaign. I saw him on the telly in the back of a cab driven by Norman Whathisname the BBC wonk and his knowledge of basic facts about London was abysmal.

  • Mr Ecks

    The job should be abolished. Again if I were PM Khan would be made redundant–without compo–before he even gets into the office.

    As for snide remarks about Trump–a “loathsome” fool who has just beaten everything that the scum of the left and the left-posing-as-the-right, (media and all) could throw at him, spending his own money and far less of it than his tricky foes–today such remarks ring hollow. He may be a disappointment as President–most are–but he has kicked the Establishment right in the balls. I wish Brexit had 100 like him.

  • Mr Ecks

    BTW The “Evil-and-Stupid” Party vs The “Stupid and Evil” party would be a much better characterisation of UK politics.

  • Jacob

    I know nothing about Sadiq Khan, I heard his name for the first time today. I read a couple of articles about him, now. He is Muslim, but it seems to me that calling him “racist judenhass” is not correct. He surely makes great efforts to gain the confidence of the Jewish voters, hard to tell how far this stance is genuine.

    One thing is sure: his way so far, as a self made man, son of poor immigrants, sounds appealing. After studying the issue for about 15 minutes, seems he is preferable over the ex-Jew Zac, a certified green-lunatic (not to mention the previous lord mayor – Livingston). I even suspect that Zac might be more antisemitic than Sadiq. Yes, there are antisemitic Jews, lots of them.

  • Jacob

    “has beaten the château bottled shit on the far left green lunatic fringe”

    Well said Perry.

    Might be that Khan, of the Labor, is less a “left lunatic fringe” than Zac the “Conservative”. He surely seems less lunatic.

  • He is Muslim, but it seems to me that calling him “racist judenhass” is not correct.

    Just google the procession of people he has shared a platform with and then tell me what you think.

  • Mr Ed


    The Lord Mayor of London is completely different to the Mayor of London and is mostly harmless and an apolitical office, and within the City he takes precedence at official functions after the Sovereign and is generally a good egg. He even gave me 30p every year as a gift when I was at school. The Lord Mayor of London is the sort of statism that gives statism a good name.

    Which might make many here loath him (ex officio).

  • Gary Kayser

    How many people voted?

    In the USA primaries, it averages less than one in three registered voters.
    Thus; when Trump won North Carolina with 33% of the votes, he actually had only about one in ten of the Republicans voting for him.

  • Mr Ecks
    May 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Gets it right about goings on around these parts. Trump has pulled the covers off American politics. And for that – I support him over the rest of the bought and paid for crooks. The rest represent the oligarchy. And he may be that as well (we will know once he is elected). But at least he represents an opposing faction of the oligarchs. He knows where the bodies are buried and has already uncovered a few.

  • Gary Kayser
    May 5, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Americans don’t vote much. Which is in fact a rational choice. I’m irrational about the matter.

  • 33% sounds like a fairly standard turnout for non-General Election voting, possibly a bit on the low side.

    The only people who vote in primaries are those who feel passionate about one candidate or the other, the same is true of Council and European Elections outside of the Westminster election cycle, it is only those that feel the voting is necessary (mainly the politically involved) or voting is an obligation of every citizen fought for by our grandfathers (mainly the patriotic, conservative and constitutionally minded) that vote, the vast majority of the electorate remain uninspired, unenthused or lacklustre.

  • The rest represent the oligarchy. And he may be that as well (we will know once he is elected). But at least he represents an opposing faction of the oligarchs. He knows where the bodies are buried and has already uncovered a few.

    Shrillary Clinton also knows where the bodies are buried, but then she would as she ordered them killed.


    Lol Hillary – Please don’t kill me too…

  • Fluffy versus Lady Macbeth


    However it seems that Fluffy will, if he means it, tear apart the institutions of so-called international law (WTO,1949 Geneva Convention, 1951 Convention on Refugees, etc etc)

    Lady Macbeth in quite open about her plans to destroy the US Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.

    I detest them both but ….

  • Mr Ecks

    WTO Nobody needs.

    Why TF would Trump have a go at the Geneva Convention? Do you have some Ramon Llull-type set of wheels with every mad accusation imagination can devise on them? Tomorrow its the turn of “Trump will abolish soap powder” (much more likely from a Clinton EPA BTW).

    The Refugee Convention needs re-drawing. “Mi Casa , Su Casa” isn’t working.

  • Alisa

    Taylor, he will do nothing of the kind. First off, yes, he does know where bodies are buried – but (shock horror) he most likely has bodies of his own, and the moment he’s the official candidate, the Media will begin Doing It’s Job.

    But even if he does survive that and gets into the WH, all his current bleatings will fly out the window, and he will begin doing what he has been doing all his life, and the only thing he’s any good at: making deals with Democrats.

  • Laird

    I don’t get the sense that Trump has any problem with the Geneva Convention. Of course, at present it is applied by the ignorant and the wicked to persons who are not lawfully subject to its provisions (i.e., non-state enemy combatants). So if as president he were to demand that it be properly applied, there are undoubtedly those who would scream that he is “destroying” it, but in that case see the words “ignorant” and “wicked” in the previous sentence.

    But as to his alleged desire to “tear apart” other institutions of international law, there is some merit to the contention. And, frankly, I would support that. If anyone hasn’t listened to Trump’s speech last week on US foreign policy, I highly recommend it. With the exception of his tiresome mercantilist cant*, it was a brilliant speech with which I am in complete agreement. At times it seemed almost Reaganesque in tone. It gave me a significant degree of comfort, which I had previously lacked, with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

    * There is no bad economic idea in the long history of bad economic ideas which has been more thoroughly discredited than mercantilism, but it refuses to die. I suppose that is because of its superficial appeal to the economically ignorant, and its less superficial (but more cynical) appeal to those seeking the expansion of governmental power.

  • hennesli

    There are anti-semites in the Labour party, such as the odious Ken Livingstone, however to call Mr Khan a ‘racist judenhass’ strikes me as a hysterical example of what Brendan O’neill calls ‘the right out-PCing the left’.

  • Perry de Havilland

    Yeah because someone who shares platforms with people who want Israel’s jews driven in the sea could not possibly be a racist judenhass. How silly of me.

  • Mr Ecks

    How many “bodies” can a business man have buried compared to political power-seeking scum for whom coercion and fiat arrogance are raison d’etre?

    Also Trump may not be a good President–if there is any such thing. But if he talks mercantile to get popular opinion on his side then he is not going to start giving lectures about why it is a bad idea.

    Not during an election campaign.

    Nobody would unless they were naïve enough to believe that voters value reason above emotion.

  • Alisa

    Mr Ecks, you are right to put ‘bodies’ in quotes – the point being that these may not be what you or I would consider ‘bodies’ in the Clintonist sense, but what the Media will sell to the general public. Remember that in politics it’s the appearances that matter.

    As to Trump as POTUS, I never argued that he will be the worst thing since stale bread, just tried to give my personal projection on what we may expect from him in that position. I could be wrong, of course, just like anyone else – he may prove to be better or worse. Me, I will not be voting in the coming elections, except for Congress, and maybe Governor.

  • Trump’s talk about bombing the shit out of ISIL is in direct contravention of the 1949 Geneva Convention. I don’t think he would try and abolish the 1905 (I may have the date wrong ?) Geneva Convention.

    If Churchill and FDR had been forced to fight the Second World War using the current Laws of Armed Conflict, this thread would not exist since the Jews would be gone and we’d all be speaking German.

  • lucklucky

    Khan is the one who called Muslim moderates “Uncle Toms” in Irananian TV, he is who allies with Hamas types and other extremist Muslims groups and individuals.
    And what did he say about Corbyn?

    The following below are examples from Order Order website:

    Andrew Neil: “Suliman Gani, who’s a supporter of Islamic State. You appeared on a platform with him nine times. During one of these times you must have found out what he really believed in?”

    Sadiq Khan: “There are lots of campaigns and issues that I’ve been involved in as the chair of Liberty, as a human rights lawyer and as a politician which had cross-party support…”

    AN: “Do you regret appearing on platforms with people like that?”

    SK: “No, I regret giving the impression I subscribe to their views…”


    Sadiq Khan put his name to a report on radicalisation which promoted a string of Islamic extremists and hardline Islamist groups. Back in 2006, Labour’s mayoral candidate wrote the foreword for a dossier published by the Free Babar Ahmad campaign, which sought the release of the cyber-jihadi Taliban fan. The paper favourably quotes a number of known wrong-uns, including:

    Jihadi John’s mates at CAGE
    Moazzam Begg, who according to the US has “strong, long-term ties to terrorism — as a sympathizer, as a recruiter, as a financier and as a combatant”
    Hizb ut-Tahrir – the radical, anti-Semitic Islamist group
    Islamic Human Rights Commission – extreme group which organises the pro-Iran Al-Quds Day rallies

    Sadiq doesn’t need Guido to tell him this looks bad, as he already has sussed that himself. He’s deleted a page on his website in which he proudly stated his involvement in the report.”

    Now he will have City of London’s money.

  • Paul Marks

    Hard to argue with this post.

  • Snag

    seems he is preferable over the ex-Jew Zac

    He was never Jewish.

  • Laird

    Taylor, ISIL is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and even if it purported to be it is not a recognized state and thus would still not subject to its protections. So precisely what part of the Convention is it that you think Trump advocates abrogating?

  • Rich Rostrom

    Trump has embarrassed the American political class, but the notion that he is any sort of outsider is rubbish. He has a long history of close associations with that same political class. He donated to both of Clinton’s Senate campaigns, donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and invited her to his last wedding. He endorsed Obama. He plays golf with John Boehner, and donated lavishly to Boehner’s campaign fund to protect Republican incumbents against Tea Party insurgents. He donated lavishly to Mitch McConnell when McConnell was challenged by a Tea Party candidate. He supports the Supreme Court’s notorious Kelo decision, which allows local governments to seize private property to be given to other private parties for “economic development”. (As a big-time developer with heavy political connections, he finds that useful.)

    He’s being advised by Chris Christie, who has appointed liberal Democrats (and no conservatives) to NJ courts; I predict that well before the election, Trump will endorse Obama’s nomination of “moderate” Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

  • Laird

    All true, Rich. (Well, except for that part about Garland; that remains to be seen.) But the inescapable fact remains that Hillary is far worse. In the choice between bad and evil you hold your nose and vote for bad. Then work to mitigate its worst elements.

  • jsallison

    I’mna guessing Bonnie Prince Charles is right as rain with this?

    Can furriners vote for James May? Captain Slow would be a good fit.

  • Bonnie Prince and Charlie are 3 sheepdogs.

    I presume you mean either “Brian” (H/T – Private Eye) or Chuckles Buggerlugs the Third.

  • Nicholas (Excentrality!) Gray

    I bet he’s not really racist! Just as Jesus was often found with sinners, and replied ‘those who are healthy do not need a doctor’, so this new mayor was probably getting them to renounce their evil ways.
    All is explained.

  • You forgot “Sarcasm” tags Nicholas.

  • Laird

    As I understand it, WE have to follow the rules even if the enemy does not. At least that’s the way the lawyers in the Pentagon have ordered the US military to behave.

    I believe that since 1949 there has only been one war in which both sides made a serious effort to follow the rules. The Falklands war of 1982.

  • Nicholas (Excentrality!) Gray

    You forgot a comma, John.

  • Laird

    Only when the enemy is a Convention signatory. ISIS is not entitled to any of its protections.

  • Mr Ed


    Would following the rules by the Argies including using searchlights on a hospital ship to aid directing fire, treacherous use of the white flag, defecating in Islanders’ homes, holding the population of Goose Green captive in a hall without proper sanitation and staging a mock execution of an Islander?

  • Mr, Ed

    I have no idea if those things happened,some of them probably did, but the fact is that the Argies officially Tried to follow the rules. I have no doubt that they came up short in practice.

  • Mr Ed

    Taylor, They all did. Confusion over a parley may be part of the fog of war, the rest, calculated war crimes. And the Argies planned a genocide (by modern definitions), they planned to hold a referendum on the invasion, after importing 10,000 Argies. They would probably have simply expelled the Islanders that hadn’t fled had they won.

    It would be fair to say that they did not set out with the avowed intent of disregarding the rules of war, but they fell far short in practice, just as in the late 1970s people fell out of helicopters over the River Plate and occasionally their corpses turned up in Uruguay. So they started to slit the stomachs to make sure that the corpses sank.

  • Runcie Balspune

    It was revealed last year the Argentinians were not even nice to their own troops, I doubt very much they could follow rules even if they did try.

  • Runcie Balspune

    Back to the subject, this time it is still ABK (anyone but Ken/Khan).

  • Nemo

    Mr Ed, usefully, history provides a direct connection between Argentina’s war on its own people and its war on another people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Astiz

  • Mr Ed

    The Wikipedia page of the London Mayoralty was edited last night just after 10pm to show Mr Goldsmith as the Mayor. What sort of dickhead do you have to be to think that such a stunt is worth doing?

  • Mr Ed, sounds like a planned fake ‘hate’ crime to me – to be used in exposing the sinister machinations of a certain group, etc.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    I told my Dad about the term “Chateau-bottled shit” and he laughed so hard I was worried about him needing para-medic assistance.

    Khan will initially try and behave himself; his media appearances will seek to avoid too many shots of him hanging out with Islamists. What really alarms me in the near term is his desire to impose rent controls, which as we know from history, works so well in fucking up the private rental sector (which in the eyes of people like Khan is a feature, not a bug).

    It may not have been deliberate, but the fuckup at Barnet, where people could not vote for a while (an area with a large Jewish electorate), seemed to have an air of inevitability about it. With al-Labour in City Hall, expect the full, glorious world of Chicago-style politics, cronysim to take hold (not that it was all that great under Boris).

  • Runcie Balspune

    London is likely to be a bit “meet the new boss same as the old boss”, it only has The City going for it and if you p*ss them off you may as well say goodbye to a whole stack of cash. What Khan might learn is that cooperation with the private sector is good for his re-election image, Comrade Ken would not play ball and consequently good* ideas he initiated such as extending Oystercards, new Routemasters and Bikes were achieved by his nemesis who got the glory.

    * good as in how they are perceived by the general voters.

  • The BBC has just this minute assured me there’s nothing to worry about. Yes, nasty Zac, backed by nasty Cameron did run ‘an ugly campaign’ whose ugliness consisted of ”accusing him of sharing platforms with extremists, even though there is _no_ _suggestion_ [BBC guy’s emphasis] that he is any kind of extremist’.

    So that’s beeb-official then: there is emphatically no suggestion that he is any kind of extremist – and you’d have to have been paying very close attention to avoid getting the impression that the BBC were actually saying there was emphatically no suggestion that he’d ever shared a platform with any extremist as nasty Zac and nasty Cameron had suggested in that ugly way they have.

  • [quotes above from memory a few minutes after watching the news at 10]

  • Paul Marks

    I “loved” (hated and despised) the way the BBC presented it all.

    They had various talking heads (not the Labour Party – “independent observers”) saying that the Conservatives were the “nasty party” trying to smear nice Mr Khan. The Conservatives (not Labour) were using “dog whistles” to try and stir up racism……

    The whole thing is farce.

    Zac Goldsmith lost because he is a rich Jew. And people have been taught to hate the rich and to hate Jews.

    Yet the BBC present it all as triumph for anti racism.

    A triumph for tolerant, kind, London.

    The people of London can pat themselves on the back.

    Pat themselves on the back for voting for a bunch of Red Fascists.

    Time for you to move Perry.

    True you are not Jewish.

    But you are (or could be presented as being – by your accent and so on) “rich”.

    And the “tolerant” and “kind” thing in the (“city without dogs” as the lady from the Evening Standard said – in her “the Tories tried dog whistles – in a city without dogs”) is to plunder and kill the rich.

    What will Mr Khan’s followers do when they find he has not got the money to build thousands of council flats – as he as promised? Or to freeze transport costs?

    The fact that everyone is being told that “freezing” prices (by edict) and building more “slums in the sky” are good policies, speaks volumes.

    Time for people who can to leave London

    It is a big property bubble any.

  • Rich Rostrom

    Laird May 6, 2016 at 12:48 am:

    … Hillary is far worse. In the choice between bad and evil you hold your nose and vote for bad.

    If it comes down to Trump v. Clinton, I would vote for Trump. At least he has demonstrated several times that he can actually manage. Clinton has demonstrated several times that she can’t. (Starting with the “Health Care Reform taskforce” Bill put her in charge of. Cal-Berkeley econ prof Brad Delong was there; he wrote later “Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.”)

    Either one of them would drive the car the wrong direction. (Hillary openly promises to; Trump would “pragmatically” do so). But Trump is less likely to drive the car into a ditch.

    But I still hope that horror will be avoided. (Actually, I am pretty sure the Democrats will dump Clinton and her huge negatives, for someone young and hip and cool, and expect to coast to victory. And the someone I expect will be even worse.)

    As to Trump – I think a lot of people are going to have buyer’s remorse by July. The question is when the mass media start the campaign of destruction. Trump’s campaign up to now has been almost entirely dependent on free media time; it’s his oxygen. They’ll continue to give it to him, but on their terms. His every appearance will be tweaked and edited to make him look bad. The tricks can be as blatant as cutting out parts of sentences or stitching unrelated statements together – or as subtle as advancing or delaying a cut by a fraction of a second. If they start now, by July Trump will be so far underwater that even his loyalists will be wavering, and he himself may want to bow out to avoid the humiliation.

  • Mr Ed

    There’s just a small chance that Mr Trump would get the job and think ‘Stuff it, I’m going to get back at all those thieving political scum who’ve been plaguing businessmen like me all my life.’.

    Whereas with his opponent, there is no chance whatsoever of such a thought even crossing that which passes for a mind.

  • Nemo

    Rich, do you not entertain the possibility that more and more people have learnt to distrust the mass media and hence their attacks on Trump actually work in his favour? People who’ve become utterly disillusioned with the political elite and realised that the media are shilling for them might see the attacks on Trump as something of a badge of honour. People don’t need to harbour any illusions about Trump’s competence to use him to give the entrenched cronies a kick – and that’s something I’ve been hoping to see for over a decade – since the period between the anti-war-in-Iraq demonstrations and the re-election of Anthony Blair, to be precise.

  • Snorri Godhi

    My prediction, tentatively, is that there is little point in thinking about voting in November: the most important factor in this US election is likely to be the FBI, not your support. And I disagree with Rich Rostrom about buyer’s remorse: Trump seems to thrive on media campaigns against him; in fact, this is pretty much the only virtue that i see in him.

    You can always vote libertarian. If they have any sense, the Libertarian Party will seize the chance by fielding a sound candidate.

    The fact that everyone is being told that “freezing” prices (by edict) and building more “slums in the sky” are good policies, speaks volumes.

    Slums in the sky??

  • Alisa

    Not to necessarily disagree with Snorri, but the FBI is a given in the sense that it is not up for election.

    What about the elections to Congress?

  • Nemo

    Snorri, Slums in the sky: the brutalist notion that ever-wise planners adopted wherein poor people would be better off living in a concrete box occasionally accessible via a urine-enriched lift/elevator, but more usually via 10 storeys of urine-enriched stairs.

  • If they have any sense, the Libertarian Party will seize the chance by fielding a sound candidate.

    Clearly you have missed your vocation as a stand-up comedian 🙁

  • Jacob

    Khan at least declared he is against BDS. Good for him. I don’t know Zac’s position on BDS, he might well be for it, judging by the circles he belongs to.
    Khan is, of course, a commie, but probably no more than Zac, and, seems, a pragmatic commie, not an ideological one.

    From the Jewish point of view it is better to have a Muslim leaning backward to show he’s not anti-Jewish, than a Jew, leaning backward to show he isn’t pro-Jewish.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Regarding Trump, the crucial point that the critics of ‘Trumpmania’ seem to miss utterly is that his supporters don’t see themselves as his followers, but as his employers. And if he doesn’t produce for them, they will be perfectly willing to fire him and hire someone else.

    Decades of being treated like the customer in the Dead Parrot sketch has put the voters right off the political establishment and its smug presumption that the public will eat whatever’s set before it. Trump is an end run around the establishment, and its horror at his nomination – by the rabble! – would not be less if he were Lincoln reincarnated.

  • When Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council because she loathed its leader the loathsome Ken Livingstone, she did something very clever. She did not create any successor body at all. (The GLC was the successor to the LCC which was the successor to the LBW, and city wide government in London had been growing in scope for 130 years). Instead, its powers and assets were given or sold piecewise to other governmental and non-governmental organisations which then became jealously protective of them. Thus, when a city-wide London government was re-established by the Blair government (which Thatcher must have realised was inevitable at some point) and the loathsome Ken Livingstone was elected as its first mayor, it had very little in the way of powers or assets. The one thing it was given power over was transportation, possibly because it probably does make some sense to run this on a London-wide basis and a London-wide transport body had continued to exist, and because a lot of people who worked for this body belonged to some particularly annoying unions and central government was therefore glad to be rid of Transport for London (TfL).

    What this means is that the job of the Mayor of London is to be a sort of cheerleader and promoter of London while being in charge of the transport system. Transport dominates the job to a remarkable extent – the London-wide government has a yearly budget of £17bn, and £11.5bn of that is the budget of TfL. At this point TfL is a strange creature consisting of highly unionised and obstructionist workers, highly competent and very sophisticated operations and investment people who are actually very good at running London’s enormously complex and rapidly growing transport system, and various sub-fiefdoms such as The Public Carriage office, which appears to have turned into a Black Cab lobby that is determined to ban uber at all costs. Its recent management (particularly former Transport Commissioner Peter Hendy, who has now been sent off on the even more impossible assignment of running Network Rail) has actually been very good, however.

    Depressingly, neither Zac Goldsmith nor Sadiq Khan appear to have any interest in or knowledge of transport whatsoever. (I strongly recommend following this link to the always excellent London Reconnections blog for the whole depressing story). In any event, in his campaign Sadiq Khan promised both to give in to the Neanderthal unions and to freeze public transport fares for the entire four years of his term of office. My expectation is that as TfL will consequently find itself with no money, all those excellent investment and operations people will get sacked and many further plans to upgrade and expand the transport network will get cancelled or shelved. Which will be great.

  • Alisa

    Why has Boris not run again?

  • Mr Ed


    The job is not meant to be combined with another such as being an MP, and Mr Johnson appears to be eyeing a succession to Mr Cameron.

  • Alisa

    Makes sense, Ed – thanks.

  • Alisa, now the local elections are over, Boris is focussed on getting Brexit (success in which would also, of course, leave him well placed to pursue career ambitions). I regret Khan’s election but if we win Brexit, the efforts of Boris (and many others) will be well repaid. Fortunately, Michael Jennings is right in saying that these days the Mayor of London does not have power commensurate with his fame.

    The BBC continues to make the (now secondary) story, not about Khan’s calling moderate muslims ‘Uncle Toms’ and etc., but all about the nasty Tories campaigning style of mentioning these things (which the BBC refer to in a suitable general and vague manner).

  • Alisa

    Thanks, Niall – I didn’t know Boris supported Brexit, and it’s good to know.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Nemo: thank you for the clarification.
    I have spent some time in a Soviet-built concrete box, but i am happy to say that there was no urine enrichment. I suppose that is to be credited more to social responsibility of the tenants than to the planners, though.

    Thanks also to Michael Jennings for putting things in perspective. Speaking of transportation, can i say that Ken Livingstone, for all his obvious and serious flaws, is to be credited for road pricing? (An idea which, surprisingly, he got from Milton Friedman.) I have not been to London for a while, so i don’t know if that still works as intended.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Yours truly:

    If they have any sense, the Libertarian Party will seize the chance by fielding a sound candidate.


    Clearly you have missed your vocation as a stand-up comedian

    Thank you, but i fear you are overrating me: i am not quick-witted enough to be either a stand up comedian or a politician.

    I’d like to know, though, what do you think most funny: that i think the US Libertarians might have some sense, or that they might have a chance to win the Presidency? because i don’t think they have any chance of the latter, that was not what i meant.

    And btw i hope PfP is right about Trump’s supporters/customers.

  • that i think the US Libertarians might have some sense…

    That was indeed what I meant 😉

  • korblimee

    Enough humming and hawing why don’t you tell us how you REALLY feel? /sarc off/ 😀