Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
You've ruffled his feathers and he will now target you. You're doing well, keep going!
Ah, the hypersensitive snowflake speaks.
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
But it is not a big change in price. If you take the implied probabilities, the market thought this morning Liz Truss had a 69 per cent chance, and now a 67 per cent chance; and of course Rishi has gone up by two percentage points.
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
You've ruffled his feathers and he will now target you. You're doing well, keep going!
Ah, the hypersensitive snowflake speaks.
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
You get angry about signs in Waterloo station saying don't be racist
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Starmer's a void. Maybe it's clever politics, and not wanting to frighten the horses before a general election, or maybe he's a really dull and unimaginative person with no big ideas rattling around in his bonce.
But it is not a big change in price. If you take the implied probabilities, the market thought this morning Liz Truss had a 69 per cent chance, and now a 67 per cent chance; and of course Rishi has gone up by two percentage points.
Thanks - agreed, not a big move, but still enough to be notable.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Starmer's a void. Maybe it's clever politics, and not wanting to frighten the horses before a general election, or maybe he's a really dull and unimaginative person with no big ideas rattling around in his bonce.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Starmer's a void. Maybe it's clever politics, and not wanting to frighten the horses before a general election, or maybe he's a really dull and unimaginative person with no big ideas rattling around in his bonce.
Worked for Cameron.
Well if your only goal is becoming leader I suppose that is correct, but I'd like to think that potential PMs have more ambition than merely getting the job.
But it is not a big change in price. If you take the implied probabilities, the market thought this morning Liz Truss had a 69 per cent chance, and now a 67 per cent chance; and of course Rishi has gone up by two percentage points.
Thanks - agreed, not a big move, but still enough to be notable.
Now just gone 1.52 in last few mins.
And while not significant, that might be significant. Why? Because the Sunday papers!
These are some of the things I’d like to see from Labour regarding the EU .
A new mobility scheme for students upto 26 to be able to work in each other’s countries for upto 2 years . Going back into Erasmus . A vet agreement. Easing of rules for the creative industries , bringing back the joint visa for school children for day trips and holidays . I’d also like to see the UK put pressure on the EU to relax the 90 day rule so that UK nationals can spend upto 180 days in one go .
I don’t think there’s anything controversial in those things . Leave won but no 10 never bothered with giving just a few scraps to Remainers , it was a case of you lost get over it without any acceptance that the result was close .
This has been one of the issues. No 10 has been obsessed with severing every link with the EU in areas that I don’t think Leavers were that bothered about.
But it is not a big change in price. If you take the implied probabilities, the market thought this morning Liz Truss had a 69 per cent chance, and now a 67 per cent chance; and of course Rishi has gone up by two percentage points.
Thanks - agreed, not a big move, but still enough to be notable.
Now just gone 1.52 in last few mins.
And while not significant, that might be significant. Why? Because the Sunday papers!
If there is some serious shit to be thrown around via the papers this must be the weekend to do it given ballots are going out v shortly.
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Labour's position is that "we've left and aren't going back in for a generation. But we can make this Brexit deal better by negotiating a slightly softer Brexit deal which solves the NI problem, lets musicians travel to EU countries more easily etc.' This is much more akin Labour's 2017 strategy when it comes to Brexit which worked rather well, as opposed to the disastrous 2019 one.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
What ratio is to be aimed for?
I'd say par is about 4/1 not 10/1
I'm not sure this is good metric to measure the quality of your post. I'm at 60% likes and you are at about 25%. Does that make me better than you. If not then why is your 25% compared to his 10% important.
"I have never believed that the EU would suddenly collapse. But I thought it likely that it would gradually run out of political capacity due to lack of popular legitimacy. Many, like myself, have drawn a comparison with the Austro-Hungarian empire: divided, weak but unreformable, aiming at best to maintain (as one of its rulers put it) “a stable level of discontent” among a resigned population. This now seems optimistic."
It never occurs to nationalists like Tombs that many of those opposing the government's disastrous approach to Brexit do so because they care deeply about the UK and its future.
Robert Tombs is a professor emeritus of French history at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of St John's College, Cambridge. He is also the recipient of the Ordre des Palmes académiques awarded by the French government. He is a respected and revered academic at the highest level, and a very intelligent man.
You may not agree with his views on the EU but he's a remarkably well-read and well-informed individual, and makes his arguments reasonably, proportionately and lucidly.
You are entirely unqualified to denigrate him with such smears.
No, I just do not share your opinion of him. I do not believe that thinking the government has handled Brexit disastrously equates to bashing, let alone hating, the UK. Equating the government to the country is nationalism.
He has done neither of those things.
You are criticising your own caricature of him, not the reality. Probably because the reality is too complex for you to deal with.
Maybe it's just that I can read ...
Self-hating Remainers are blind to the EU's flaws
Their obsession with bashing Britain has not wavered, even as their project across the Channel crashes and burns
Every word of that is true. There are a plethora of Remainers on this site who want to bash everything Britain does while dismissing anything that EU politicians do wrong.
There are some on this site who get so angry at anyone who has a negative word to say even about, say, German politicians soft on Russiaz that they start ranting and raving about the Express instead.
I think you're exaggerating.
I don't think anyone here except like two people actually want to rejoin the EU. I certainly don't.
I do not think pointing out that Brexit has issues is any more problematic than you spent presumably thirty years telling us what was going wrong with remaining.
They differ slightly in how they want to rejoin, some accept the need for a slow political process, some would do it by diktat on day 1 of a Labour govt, but all would rejoin tomorrow if a wand could be waved
It's done and we have to make the best of it. It would also be good to take the heat out of the issue so that the way forward can be plotted in a calm and pragmatic way.
The pre-requisite for this to happen is imo a fairly simple one. It just needs some sort of public statement on behalf of the Leave campaign and Leave voters that ok ok we see now this was a pretty stupid thing to do.
That would do it. Not a grovelling apology or anything. It's human nature to err. Nobody wants blood. Just the admission of an error made. Truss has done it in reverse for ultra cynical political reasons, so why not do it properly for these more admirable reasons.
You can kick it off if you want.
We are all👂👂👂
I didn’t put you on the list, so I’ve no idea why you’re replying to me. Stop it
Oh I see. Speak when spoken to, is it? Golly.
But c'mon seriously - a clear statement from you that you now realise Brexit was stupid would go a long way on here. I'd say transformational.
Take your time but please get on with it.
👂👂👂
I’m happy with Brexit. I’m pleased we’re free and democratic, once again. Next
That isn't transformational. Ah well, it'll have to be the long game then. What a shame. We had a chance here. Much needless aggro ahead.
I’ll save you the bother. I’ll never regret Brexit. Because, even if we all end up eating pebbles in Newent, it was worthwhile at least having a go at national freedom and independence. I’ll just think it’s a shame it didn’t work out - and I’ll blame the failure on the europhiles who fraudulently took us so deep into the EU - without permission - exiting became fatally dangerous
So you will totally understand the desire of Scots for independence? Or just more British exceptionalism?
Yes, I will. But there are two competing an ancient sovereignties here: the UK and Scotland, so they must be balanced
Scotland legally signed up for the UK, and to be governed by the UK Parliament (which includes freely elected Scottish MPs, alongside English, Welsh. Norn). The UK is democratic, the EU is not. So it is the UK government which has the right to allow referendums as and when it is deemed fit by all British MPs (including Scottish MPs)
I think it was right you got your referendum in 2014, it had to be called. But now you must wait for a generation
If you want one sooner, you have to persuade a majority of your British MPs at your British parliament. Westminster
Nah, leaving the EU was a material change in circumstances, and the No vote was won on the basis of staying in the EU. The generation argument is irrelevant.
That would be an interesting argument, if only the YES vote had not been predicated on instant Scottish exit from the EU, which is what would have happened if YES had won, as everyone knew but they didn't like to discuss
Anyway, we differ. Which is fine. But you don't need to persuade me, you need to persuade - if you are so inclined - the British Parliament in London SW1. Good luck. It's called a democracy
Persuading elected reps in different countries to 'allow' a process in another country? Sounds a bit EU (except that the EU puts no legal obstacles in front of countries who wish to reconsider their membership).
You signed up for full UK membership. With governance from the supreme parliament at Westminster. You got quite a lot of benefits from this, such as the British Empire, the Industrial Revolution, the extinction of your ludicrous Gaelic tongue and its replacement by noble and magnificent English, and halfway decent food (OK the last is a job still ongoing)
The quid pro quo was Westminster Decides, as it decides for all of us. And this is not so onerous, Westminster gave you a referendum 8 years ago, it's not like it is a cruel colonial state oppressing you
Get on with your lives, forget indy, go back to you hovels, and eat your oats, like a proper North Briton. It is better that way
You must be getting dizzy spinning on that top trying to arguing opposite sides of the same argument. I mean you are telling him much he has got out of it as a reason to stay (in the UK) and yet telling others you don't care what it cost to leave (the EU).
Bluntly, it's about power.
In the UK, English Conservatives are numerous enough to win votes and be in charge.
Across the EU, they aren't in charge, because there aren't enough of them.
Same was true on the left. UK socialists hated the EEC/EU until they realised they could contribute to running the thing.
What most people want is the largest unit that allows them to get their way. See also states rights arguments in the USA.
Bingo. Post of the day. That’s it in a nutshell. That’s all it was ever about for the Eurosceptics. And to get their way they’ve lied and lied and peddled unicorns. The bastards.
They don’t care about the people of this country, or their lives. They knew Brexit would bring years of division and disruption. They don’t care. They didn’t even bother to plan for it. They just want unfettered power - attractively branded as lovely, fluffy-sounding ‘sovereignty’. And they said whatever it took to get it.
It would almost make Brexit worth it if, as a reaction to the shitshow that the country is inevitably realising it is, it led to the election of a coalition that got through PR and gave the right-wingers a taste of the unwelcome fucking I, and millions of other people, feel like they’ve been given since 2016 by the bastard Conservatives and their malign fellow travellers.
This is right. British centrist dads look across the channel and see a load of people who basically think the same as them. People who like parental leave, and cycling to work, and well funded public education systems and capitalism brought to heel. People like Jacob Rees Mogg look across the channel and see nothing they like, and nobody to ally with. They would rather be the biggest fish in the shitty little pond that they have made for themselves.
Couldn’t agree more.
I used to know a bloke, now a local Conservative politician, who had a well paid job working for a big company. Secure, predictable, regular hours, happy days.
But he just couldn’t stand being told what to do. He just had to be his own boss.
So he saved up, and bought himself a business, in an area he had no knowledge of.
And now he professes to be as happy as a pig in shit cos he’s his own boss. He works every hour God sends, with his political responsibilities on top of running his business he has no personal life. No time for it. No missus anymore, kid he sees sporadically, no time - or energy - for another relationship. Drives a shitty old car. The biggest fish in his shitty little pond.
And that’s what the Eurosceptics have done to the UK. They want power so bad, they want to be their own boss so badly, they’ve jilted the UK out of its secure existence into this chaos that will leave us all poorer, working harder just to stay still, because they can’t bear to compromise, to sometimes have to be told what to do, to work with others.
It's astonishing a horseshit post like this - "I used to know a bloke.." - has got 8 likes.
Diminishes those who've rowed in behind it.
Shame.
You are so wedded to your own certainties that I don't think you are capable of seeing how millions of your countrymen view Brexit.
Erm, the irony of Remainers talking about being "wedded to your own certainties".... lol....
We all have our views on Brexit and it's not the remain side that appear to be having second thoughts - what is it now only about a third of voters still believe it was the right thing to do?
My point, however, is that a couple of posters (CR and BartyR in particular) are so emotionally invested in Brexit they can no longer even begin to understand those people who think it was a huge mistake
I can completely understand those who think Brexit was a terrible error. If you are so plodding and unimaginative all you cared about was the allegedly ‘nice, safe, secure’ slot we had in the EU, then Brexit is a disaster
If you don’t care about or understand sovereignty or democracy, but you are a small wine trader shipping in claret and Barolo, my God you will HATE Brexit
But we voted Leave. So they will just have to cope, as eurosceptics coped with the slow, awful, remorseless erosion of our sovereignty - without consent - from 1973-2016
We were always sovereign.
We were about as sovereign as someone in a Mafia gang who is told ‘sure, you can leave, any time - but when you try we will break your legs’
As Michel Barnier put it as he took on the job of Brexit negotiator, ‘I will count myself a success if, at the end, the British wish they’d never voted Leave’. He did quite well on his own terms
And yet when I put the argument to you re our sovereignty earlier today you declined to respond or just threw out insults without dealing with the argument. Ignoring the argument and saying the same stuff is not fruitful and just looks like a lost argument.
Leavers won't take yes for an answer.
They didn't like the rules of the club any more and that's fine. Or would be, if they knew what rules they weren't supposed to like. But the vast majority don't. So they blather on about sovereignty.
I think @MarqueeMark's description of those people as pig-shit thick gammons is harsh but he seems to know.
Because to most people sovereignty means being supreme at making your own choices, not abiding by other people's choices and having to stick with that without a say.
If a wife in a controlling relationship is constantly told what to do by a domineering husband, and she is desperately unhappy and wants to live her own way, but she has a right to get away from him and divorce him ... would you tell her that sticking with him as he dominates and tells her what to do means she's in control as she has the choice to leave him, therefore she shouldn't get divorced because she's in control by letting him dominate her?
If that woman borrows money from a bank and has to re-pay it, would you say she’s not supreme at making her own choices? If she wants to go on holiday to Bali, but realises she can’t afford to, does that make her not supreme at making her own choices? If she votes for politicians who want cannabis to be illegal, or even if she votes for ones that want cannabis to be legal, but they don’t win, and cannabis is illegal, and she has a toke and gets arrested, is she supreme at making her own choices? People live in the real world and their choices are constrained by context, sometimes by their own past choices, sometimes just by their situation.
A country choosing to be in the EU, is that more like a wife with a domineering husband, or someone going into a partnership with others to open a baking goods store? You can throw around this nice sounding analogies about controlling husbands, but that’s just rhetoric. It sheds no light on the actual politics, because countries are not people and your analogy is ridiculously loaded.
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Which is fine if you want to succeed by default and you're putting all your eggs in your opponents screwing up, then don't frighten the horses can work.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Starmer's a void. Maybe it's clever politics, and not wanting to frighten the horses before a general election, or maybe he's a really dull and unimaginative person with no big ideas rattling around in his bonce.
Worked for Cameron.
Well if your only goal is becoming leader I suppose that is correct, but I'd like to think that potential PMs have more ambition than merely getting the job.
When was the last time that someone who actually had a big idea how to change the country became PM? Not just "it should be me, make it me, I'm better" mentality but actually wanted the job to do something?
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Labour's position is that "we've left and aren't going back in for a generation. But we can make this Brexit deal better by negotiating a slightly softer Brexit deal which solves the NI problem, lets musicians travel to EU countries more easily etc.' This is much more akin Labour's 2017 strategy when it comes to Brexit which worked rather well, as opposed to the disastrous 2019 one.
If Labour had followed Starmer's original Brexit policy (i.e. EFTA, as outlined in Left Out), as soon as GE17 was over, they'd have been in the position to win an election. Alas, Seumus got involved
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Which is fine if you want to succeed by default and you're putting all your eggs in your opponents screwing up, then don't frighten the horses can work.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
You've ruffled his feathers and he will now target you. You're doing well, keep going!
Ah, the hypersensitive snowflake speaks.
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
You get angry about signs in Waterloo station saying don't be racist
To be fair, he got angry about signs in Waterloo saying don’t be misogynistic.
These are some of the things I’d like to see from Labour regarding the EU .
A new mobility scheme for students upto 26 to be able to work in each other’s countries for upto 2 years . Going back into Erasmus . A vet agreement. Easing of rules for the creative industries , bringing back the joint visa for school children for day trips and holidays . I’d also like to see the UK put pressure on the EU to relax the 90 day rule so that UK nationals can spend upto 180 days in one go .
I don’t think there’s anything controversial in those things . Leave won but no 10 never bothered with giving just a few scraps to Remainers , it was a case of you lost get over it without any acceptance that the result was close .
This has been one of the issues. No 10 has been obsessed with severing every link with the EU in areas that I don’t think Leavers were that bothered about.
I'm not sure it was triumphalist Leavers that were the problem; more that none of them, not Boris, not David Davis negotiating without notes, certainly not the ERG, had given the slightest thought to what they wanted if we ever did leave.
Imagine you are Leicestershire. Bottom of the table without a win. Make 584 first innings and have Glamorgan 9-2. Somehow manage to eventually lose by an innings and 28 runs.
I will be honest, I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Get back to the wine.
What's the danger? Are you worried he's going to undergo some psychosis and start babbling about aliens and conspiracies about lab leaked viruses?
LOL.
Could be the opposite. The skunk could turn him into a mild mannered commentator on political events who no longer sees the four horsemen riding down the street alongside alien spaceships outside his window.
Didn't you have major drug addiction problems when you were younger? Not sure "dabbling" is a good idea?
REEEEELAXXXXXX
I've never been THAT into weed, I won't start now. Besides, all you lot have been kindly advising me to rein in the booze, so this is y
*runs into kitchen looking for Brie*
No, I thought you had a problem Heroin/opiates when you was younger? Maybe I've got that wrong? But if you did, I'd be wary of getting into weed as these things can escalate quickly with addicts.
I hold Seumus almost entirely responsible for the failure of Labour under Corbyn, man was a muppet. Of course Corbyn appointed him so is ultimately responsible but all of the bad decisions, he was involved with.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
What ratio is to be aimed for?
I dont know the answer for that, but part of me dies inside when an absolute ‘zinger’ gets no likes at all...
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me I think I’ll go eat worms! Big fat juicy ones Eensie weensy squeensy ones See how they wiggle and squirm!
Down goes the first one, down goes the second one Oh how they wiggle and squirm! Up comes the first one, up comes the second one Oh how they wiggle and squirm!
I bite off the heads, and suck out the juice And throw the skins away! Nobody knows how fat I grow On worms three times a day!
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me I think I’ll go eat worms! Big fat juicy ones Eensie weensy squeensy ones See how they wiggle and squirm!
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
What ratio is to be aimed for?
I dont know the answer for that, but part of me dies inside when an absolute ‘zinger’ gets no likes at all...
Especially when it comes at the fag end of a thread.
I was so proud of my joke the other day with the extra money being paid to the EU because of the A50 extension that we should send the bill to Benn...
Tory grandees who served in Margaret Thatcher’s final cabinet have warned that the former prime minister would never have approved of Liz Truss’s plan to slash £30bn off taxes funded by borrowing, as Rishi Sunak denounced his opponent’s plans as “immoral”.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
What ratio is to be aimed for?
I dont know the answer for that, but part of me dies inside when an absolute ‘zinger’ gets no likes at all...
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me I think I’ll go eat worms! Big fat juicy ones Eensie weensy squeensy ones See how they wiggle and squirm!
Down goes the first one, down goes the second one Oh how they wiggle and squirm! Up comes the first one, up comes the second one Oh how they wiggle and squirm!
I bite off the heads, and suck out the juice And throw the skins away! Nobody knows how fat I grow On worms three times a day!
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me I think I’ll go eat worms! Big fat juicy ones Eensie weensy squeensy ones See how they wiggle and squirm!
Tory grandees who served in Margaret Thatcher’s final cabinet have warned that the former prime minister would never have approved of Liz Truss’s plan to slash £30bn off taxes funded by borrowing, as Rishi Sunak denounced his opponent’s plans as “immoral”.
The problem I have with the "slavery fuelled the Industrial Revolution" argument is that slavery and slave trading both retard economic development.
The USA gives us the perfect worked example. By 1860, the Free North East and Mid West was industrialising swiftly, the Slave South barely at all. The profits of slaving generally went not to investing in new businesses and industries, but to expensive forms of conspicuous consumption - grand houses, artworks, race horses, and fancy slaves, whose prices got bid upwards. Slavery also fostered a mentality among the slave owners that works against hard work, sobriety, innovation, all the things you need to grow new businesses. Most slavers died heavily in debt because of their absurdly lavish lifestyles.
Likewise the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states owned and traded slaves on a vast scale, and sponsored slave hunting in Africa, to the great benefit of much of their elite, but to no benefit at all for the mass of the population. Ditto Spanish and Portugese America, whose economies were stagnating by the 1800's.
The Industrial Revolution was disproportionately the work of nonconformists, the types of people who tended mostly to despise slavery.
They tried to stiff us over Erasmus. I’m all for student exchange, have hosted loads, but it should be reasonable.
Except that’s not true . The EU wanted the UK to sign up for 7 years which is the normal timeframe for third countries and pay an association fee . This wasn’t controversial. The UK only wanted to participate in elements of Erasmus and wouldn’t commit to the full time period .
It’s more about some in governments hatred of anything that continues strong cultural ties with the EU .
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The Tory candidates have pitched this around who is the most Thatcherite. Labour have largely tracked back to Blair. Obviously there are some differences but in an extraordinary time we see relatively few new ideas. Is the next 21st century election Thatcherites v Blairites?
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Starmer's a void. Maybe it's clever politics, and not wanting to frighten the horses before a general election, or maybe he's a really dull and unimaginative person with no big ideas rattling around in his bonce.
Trouble is, if it's the former it might get him elected but it will make it more difficult to get support for his policies if he doesn't spring them on the people until after he's in Downing Street.
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
Yes but I'd put it differently.
This bunch of Tories will leave a mess in large part because of Brexit.
Labour will come in and improve things - and not a single thing they do to achieve this improvement would have been prevented by EU membership.
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Labour's position is that "we've left and aren't going back in for a generation. But we can make this Brexit deal better by negotiating a slightly softer Brexit deal which solves the NI problem, lets musicians travel to EU countries more easily etc.' This is much more akin Labour's 2017 strategy when it comes to Brexit which worked rather well, as opposed to the disastrous 2019 one.
If Labour had followed Starmer's original Brexit policy (i.e. EFTA, as outlined in Left Out), as soon as GE17 was over, they'd have been in the position to win an election. Alas, Seumus got involved
This Starmer revisionary period is the best thing that's happened in terms of Labour's electability since Blair. If they'd aimed for EFTA they'd be bogged down in detail, and anyway it would have smacked of circumventing the decision.
Reeves is their single greatest asset - she's the first Labour politician ever to make some sort of economic sense.
A heady brew of daftness keeps them unelectable of course, but, as a Tory, I worry a little.
They tried to stiff us over Erasmus. I’m all for student exchange, have hosted loads, but it should be reasonable.
Except that’s not true . The EU wanted the UK to sign up for 7 years which is the normal timeframe for third countries and pay an association fee . This wasn’t controversial. The UK only wanted to participate in elements of Erasmus and wouldn’t commit to the full time period .
It’s more about some in governments hatred of anything that continues strong cultural ties with the EU .
Right - an association fee for exchanges. That’s the bit that is wrong. It’s about exchange, so why pay an association fee?
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
You've ruffled his feathers and he will now target you. You're doing well, keep going!
Ah, the hypersensitive snowflake speaks.
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
You get angry about signs in Waterloo station saying don't be racist
It was "sexist hate stops with men", actually. And it's you who hasn't been able to shut up about them ever since, not me.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The Tory candidates have pitched this around who is the most Thatcherite. Labour have largely tracked back to Blair. Obviously there are some differences but in an extraordinary time we see relatively few new ideas. Is the next 21st century election Thatcherites v Blairites?
Yes Labour is back to winning elections.
Trouble they are all terribly inferior to the real thing...
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
You've ruffled his feathers and he will now target you. You're doing well, keep going!
Ah, the hypersensitive snowflake speaks.
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
You get angry about signs in Waterloo station saying don't be racist
It was "sexist hate stops with men", actually. And it's you who hasn't been able to shut up about them ever since, not me.
You can never shut up about wokeism is destroying the world, this is just the latest example of it. Even though nobody actually knows or cares what you are on about.
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Cameron started from a smaller deficit and still didn't win a majority. And he certainly had more policies by the equivalent of now than Sir Keir does.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
What ratio is to be aimed for?
I'd say par is about 4/1 not 10/1
I'm not sure this is good metric to measure the quality of your post. I'm at 60% likes and you are at about 25%. Does that make me better than you. If not then why is your 25% compared to his 10% important.
I don't think any of us post for the likes.
Which actually makes it far worse for him given he's only got 10% from 2.9k comments.
Signing off for now but to coin a phrase “nothing has changed”.
Brexit = a calamity Brexiteers = morons
Goodnight!
Only 10% of your nearly 3,000 posts has ever got a like, and you have flags and offtopics at over a 10% ratio of those - which must be a near record high ratio.
People aren't exactly loving your content.
I’m not here for likes. If the moderators think I am out of line, they will do the needful.
The fact you had to make this comment is more a reflection of you, rather than me.
Er, no. It's a reflection of you.
The "votes" speak for themselves.
But you were just moaning before about really bad posts getting lots of likes!
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Labour's position is that "we've left and aren't going back in for a generation. But we can make this Brexit deal better by negotiating a slightly softer Brexit deal which solves the NI problem, lets musicians travel to EU countries more easily etc.' This is much more akin Labour's 2017 strategy when it comes to Brexit which worked rather well, as opposed to the disastrous 2019 one.
If Labour had followed Starmer's original Brexit policy (i.e. EFTA, as outlined in Left Out), as soon as GE17 was over, they'd have been in the position to win an election. Alas, Seumus got involved
This Starmer revisionary period is the best thing that's happened in terms of Labour's electability since Blair. If they'd aimed for EFTA they'd be bogged down in detail, and anyway it would have smacked of circumventing the decision.
Reeves is their single greatest asset - she's the first Labour politician ever to make some sort of economic sense.
A heady brew of daftness keeps them unelectable of course, but, as a Tory, I worry a little.
Starmer managed to destroy Corbynism and the left from the inside - I am sure as a Tory you can be pleased about that. The man has some sort of talent, not sure it yet means winning elections but he sure knows how to win over the Labour Party and then do the opposite, only Blair has recently managed the same
The problem I have with the "slavery fuelled the Industrial Revolution" argument is that slavery and slave trading both retard economic development.
The USA gives us the perfect worked example. By 1860, the Free North East and Mid West was industrialising swiftly, the Slave South barely at all. The profits of slaving generally went not to investing in new businesses and industries, but to expensive forms of conspicuous consumption - grand houses, artworks, race horses, and fancy slaves, whose prices got bid upwards. Slavery also fostered a mentality among the slave owners that works against hard work, sobriety, innovation, all the things you need to grow new businesses. Most slavers died heavily in debt because of their absurdly lavish lifestyles.
Likewise the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states owned and traded slaves on a vast scale, and sponsored slave hunting in Africa, to the great benefit of much of their elite, but to no benefit at all for the mass of the population. Ditto Spanish and Portugese America, whose economies were stagnating by the 1800's.
The Industrial Revolution was disproportionately the work of nonconformists, the types of people who tended mostly to despise slavery.
That is pure gibberish. Yes slavery is uneconomic *given the industrial revolution* but nobody claims that the IR was a thing in the heyday of the slave revolution.
They tried to stiff us over Erasmus. I’m all for student exchange, have hosted loads, but it should be reasonable.
Except that’s not true . The EU wanted the UK to sign up for 7 years which is the normal timeframe for third countries and pay an association fee . This wasn’t controversial. The UK only wanted to participate in elements of Erasmus and wouldn’t commit to the full time period .
It’s more about some in governments hatred of anything that continues strong cultural ties with the EU .
Right - an association fee for exchanges. That’s the bit that is wrong. It’s about exchange, so why pay an association fee?
If you’re in the EU and contributing that way, you don’t pay a fee, but third countries pay a fee. We picked which of those we wanted to be.
Imagine you are Leicestershire. Bottom of the table without a win. Make 584 first innings and have Glamorgan 9-2. Somehow manage to eventually lose by an innings and 28 runs.
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Cameron started from a smaller deficit and still didn't win a majority. And he certainly had more policies by the equivalent of now than Sir Keir does.
He did become the Prime Minister however - and that is ultimately what Starmer is trying to do.
At this point, I think Labour would make a success out of Brexit - whatever that means - with Starmer at the helm. The Tories don't have a clue, they've had plenty of chances. Goodbye.
And yet Starmer hasn't got a clue or any ideas. All he ever says is what he's against, not what he's for.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
Labour's position is that "we've left and aren't going back in for a generation. But we can make this Brexit deal better by negotiating a slightly softer Brexit deal which solves the NI problem, lets musicians travel to EU countries more easily etc.' This is much more akin Labour's 2017 strategy when it comes to Brexit which worked rather well, as opposed to the disastrous 2019 one.
If Labour had followed Starmer's original Brexit policy (i.e. EFTA, as outlined in Left Out), as soon as GE17 was over, they'd have been in the position to win an election. Alas, Seumus got involved
This Starmer revisionary period is the best thing that's happened in terms of Labour's electability since Blair. If they'd aimed for EFTA they'd be bogged down in detail, and anyway it would have smacked of circumventing the decision.
Reeves is their single greatest asset - she's the first Labour politician ever to make some sort of economic sense.
A heady brew of daftness keeps them unelectable of course, but, as a Tory, I worry a little.
Reminds me of the pre-2010 situation. Government floundering about. Clearly on its last legs. But with largely unscary opposition headed by an untried bloke who'd focussed mainly on internal party reform without much policy differences. With an impressive Shadow Chancellor. I was relatively sanguine at the time.
@s8mb Feels like a new intellectual divide is emerging in the UK, between “growth optimists” who see the country’s dire economic state as a failure of domestic policy, and “pessimists” who see it as largely a result of demographics and int’l trends (+ Brexit). Crosses left/right lines.
Well, all developed countries (except those that have had massive commodities windfalls) have struggled in the post 2008 world. The ever rising cost of pensions and healthcare will continue to fall on workers in the developed world, and we do need answers to how we're going to pay for it.
The UK also has some unique issues: in particular we suffer from high trade deficits and low levels of domestic saving. The consequences of which is that we've moved from being a country which was owed money, to one which owes money.
These issues are nothing to with Brexit, and will not be solved by Brexit itself.
Where Brexit is helpful is in making responsibility for solving those issues - and the UK's broken benefits system - fall directly on elected politicians. There is no hiding behind the EU, or using immigration to solve the issue of a worsening dependency ratio.
While I am personally more - ahem - attracted to Liz Truss, I would be more enthusiastic about her, if she acknowledged some of the problems the UK faced, rather than simply repeating the words "tax cuts" and "deregulation", neither of which directly address the problems of the UK.
I have the solution: Labour Government.
Well, that's the solution to everything, isn't it?
Ironically, a Labour government might make the UK more accepting of Brexit. By removing the ERG having any influence over the Prime Minister and government, and with Labour negotiating a fresh deal which mitigates some of our present problems might convince some people that it was wrong that perhaps it's not too bad.
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Which is fine if you want to succeed by default and you're putting all your eggs in your opponents screwing up, then don't frighten the horses can work.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
Really? What ideas were those?
1. Cancelling Labour's planned Jobs Tax (aka National Insurance) rise and cutting Corporation Tax. (relevant to today's Tory leadership contest?) 2. Abolishing planned ID Cards 3. "Hug a hoodie" reforms to criminal justice. 4. Blocking Blair's detention without trial. 5. Abolishing Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority and returning supervisory roles back to the Bank of England 6. The "pupil premium" for schools that take disadvantaged children. 7. Free schools 8. Elected Police and Crime Commissioners to be introduced 9. Raising the age for retirement. 10. Reforming the NHS
Those are some of them. Whether you think they're good or bad ideas, were implemented well or badly, is debatable but there were ideas there.
The problem I have with the "slavery fuelled the Industrial Revolution" argument is that slavery and slave trading both retard economic development.
The USA gives us the perfect worked example. By 1860, the Free North East and Mid West was industrialising swiftly, the Slave South barely at all. The profits of slaving generally went not to investing in new businesses and industries, but to expensive forms of conspicuous consumption - grand houses, artworks, race horses, and fancy slaves, whose prices got bid upwards. Slavery also fostered a mentality among the slave owners that works against hard work, sobriety, innovation, all the things you need to grow new businesses. Most slavers died heavily in debt because of their absurdly lavish lifestyles.
Likewise the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states owned and traded slaves on a vast scale, and sponsored slave hunting in Africa, to the great benefit of much of their elite, but to no benefit at all for the mass of the population. Ditto Spanish and Portugese America, whose economies were stagnating by the 1800's.
The Industrial Revolution was disproportionately the work of nonconformists, the types of people who tended mostly to despise slavery.
The whole point of an Industrial Revolution is to substitute machines for people (and animals). H.P. rather than horse power (or human power.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The Tory candidates have pitched this around who is the most Thatcherite. Labour have largely tracked back to Blair. Obviously there are some differences but in an extraordinary time we see relatively few new ideas. Is the next 21st century election Thatcherites v Blairites?
Yes Labour is back to winning elections.
Trouble they are all terribly inferior to the real thing...
Have Labour tracked back to Blair? If so, I must have missed it.
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Which is fine if you want to succeed by default and you're putting all your eggs in your opponents screwing up, then don't frighten the horses can work.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
Really? What ideas were those?
1. Cancelling Labour's planned Jobs Tax (aka National Insurance) rise and cutting Corporation Tax. (relevant to today's Tory leadership contest?) 2. Abolishing planned ID Cards 3. "Hug a hoodie" reforms to criminal justice. 4. Blocking Blair's detention without trial. 5. Abolishing Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority and returning supervisory roles back to the Bank of England 6. The "pupil premium" for schools that take disadvantaged children. 7. Free schools 8. Elected Police and Crime Commissioners to be introduced 9. Raising the age for retirement. 10. Reforming the NHS
Those are some of them. Whether you think they're good or bad ideas, were implemented well or badly, is debatable but there were ideas there.
And I can find 10 policies Labour has announced if you would like?
The point is that Cameron didn't win for those policies, he won because he said Labour had crashed the economy.
And forced choice in opinium is 42 36 lab and Starmer vs con and Sunak, 40 39 versus Con and Truss. Race tightening Sunak scores slightly better on will make a good PM
Cameron's 2010 election platform was essentially, Labour crashed the car and caused the global recession, we didn't - vote for us.
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Which is fine if you want to succeed by default and you're putting all your eggs in your opponents screwing up, then don't frighten the horses can work.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
Really? What ideas were those?
1. Cancelling Labour's planned Jobs Tax (aka National Insurance) rise and cutting Corporation Tax. (relevant to today's Tory leadership contest?) 2. Abolishing planned ID Cards 3. "Hug a hoodie" reforms to criminal justice. 4. Blocking Blair's detention without trial. 5. Abolishing Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority and returning supervisory roles back to the Bank of England 6. The "pupil premium" for schools that take disadvantaged children. 7. Free schools 8. Elected Police and Crime Commissioners to be introduced 9. Raising the age for retirement. 10. Reforming the NHS
Those are some of them. Whether you think they're good or bad ideas, were implemented well or badly, is debatable but there were ideas there.
And I can find 10 policies Labour has announced if you would like?
The point is that Cameron didn't win for those policies, he won because he said Labour had crashed the economy.
Go ahead, please, I would be utterly amazed if you can find 10 policies Labour have announced.
Whether Cameron won for his ideas or not, he had them. What has Starmer got?
The problem I have with the "slavery fuelled the Industrial Revolution" argument is that slavery and slave trading both retard economic development.
The USA gives us the perfect worked example. By 1860, the Free North East and Mid West was industrialising swiftly, the Slave South barely at all. The profits of slaving generally went not to investing in new businesses and industries, but to expensive forms of conspicuous consumption - grand houses, artworks, race horses, and fancy slaves, whose prices got bid upwards. Slavery also fostered a mentality among the slave owners that works against hard work, sobriety, innovation, all the things you need to grow new businesses. Most slavers died heavily in debt because of their absurdly lavish lifestyles.
Likewise the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states owned and traded slaves on a vast scale, and sponsored slave hunting in Africa, to the great benefit of much of their elite, but to no benefit at all for the mass of the population. Ditto Spanish and Portugese America, whose economies were stagnating by the 1800's.
The Industrial Revolution was disproportionately the work of nonconformists, the types of people who tended mostly to despise slavery.
The whole point of an Industrial Revolution is to substitute machines for people (and animals). H.P. rather than horse power (or human power.
Sure. My interest is more in the way that ownership and trade in slaves (like any form of economics based upon plunder) actually works against economic development. It's similar to the curse of natural resources. The profits get captured by a tiny elite who then spend lavishly.
Comments
One who can dish it out, but absolutely can't take it.
Sunak's Grantham speech today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4R_MEi_dTM
But it is not a big change in price. If you take the implied probabilities, the market thought this morning Liz Truss had a 69 per cent chance, and now a 67 per cent chance; and of course Rishi has gone up by two percentage points.
Truss and Sunak have two different visions, competing sets of genuine ideas. You may or may not like them, but there's substance there.
Behind Starmer there's what? What actual substance or ideas?
Make Brexit Work is up there with Brexit Means Brexit for it's vacuity.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/22/brexit-liz-truss-delusion-rishi-sunak-tory-members
Now just gone 1.52 in last few mins.
A new mobility scheme for students upto 26 to be able to work in each other’s countries for upto 2 years . Going back into Erasmus . A vet agreement. Easing of rules for the creative industries , bringing back the joint visa for school children for day trips and holidays . I’d also like to see the UK put pressure on the EU to relax the 90 day rule so that UK nationals can spend upto 180 days in one go .
I don’t think there’s anything controversial in those things . Leave won but no 10 never bothered with giving just a few scraps to Remainers , it was a case of you lost get over it without any acceptance that the result was close .
This has been one of the issues. No 10 has been obsessed with severing every link with the EU in areas that I don’t think Leavers were that bothered about.
1.52 Liz Truss 66%
2.96 Rishi Sunak 34%
Next Conservative leader
1.52 Liz Truss 66%
2.94 Rishi Sunak 34%
A small move to Rishi. Rumours of polls or other Sunday paper content?
Starmer's 2024 platform will be, the Tories crashed the car and caused the economic blackhole we're in, we didn't - vote for us.
I have said since day one, his strategy is Cameron's. When you understand that, it is completely clear what he is doing.
Get back to the wine.
I don't think any of us post for the likes.
A country choosing to be in the EU, is that more like a wife with a domineering husband, or someone going into a partnership with others to open a baking goods store? You can throw around this nice sounding analogies about controlling husbands, but that’s just rhetoric. It sheds no light on the actual politics, because countries are not people and your analogy is ridiculously loaded.
But Cameron put a lot more work in, came up with a lot more ideas, and he still didn't get a majority from a much closer starting point and nearly ended up losing the election.
If Starmer wants to be an empty suit for people to project their own hopes and dreams onto he's entitled to do that, but he's got no vision or ideas then and people might decide to back away from that in the end.
Blair?
Thatcher? Definitely she fits my description.
I've never been THAT into weed, I won't start now. Besides, all you lot have been kindly advising me to rein in the booze, so this is y
*runs into kitchen looking for Brie*
Make 584 first innings and have Glamorgan 9-2.
Somehow manage to eventually lose by an innings and 28 runs.
Could be the opposite. The skunk could turn him into a mild mannered commentator on political events who no longer sees the four horsemen riding down the street alongside alien spaceships outside his window.
But up to you of course..
GE19 - Semus
Russian poisoning response - Seumus
Brexit policy - Seumus
Anti-Semitism response - Seumus
If only Corbyn had taken on board Kevin Schofield who was pitching himself for the job...
I think I’ll go eat worms!
Big fat juicy ones
Eensie weensy squeensy ones
See how they wiggle and squirm!
Down goes the first one, down goes the second one
Oh how they wiggle and squirm!
Up comes the first one, up comes the second one
Oh how they wiggle and squirm!
I bite off the heads, and suck out the juice
And throw the skins away!
Nobody knows how fat I grow
On worms three times a day!
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me
I think I’ll go eat worms!
Big fat juicy ones
Eensie weensy squeensy ones
See how they wiggle and squirm!
I was so proud of my joke the other day with the extra money being paid to the EU because of the A50 extension that we should send the bill to Benn...
And I think most of their policies of recent decades have been a disaster - but that has got to tell you something.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/23/thatcher-ministers-liz-truss-tax-cut-plans-patten-lamont-rifkind
That has got to tell you something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czRsdzCBF1Y
Heidi is back
The USA gives us the perfect worked example. By 1860, the Free North East and Mid West was industrialising swiftly, the Slave South barely at all. The profits of slaving generally went not to investing in new businesses and industries, but to expensive forms of conspicuous consumption - grand houses, artworks, race horses, and fancy slaves, whose prices got bid upwards. Slavery also fostered a mentality among the slave owners that works against hard work, sobriety, innovation, all the things you need to grow new businesses. Most slavers died heavily in debt because of their absurdly lavish lifestyles.
Likewise the Ottoman Empire and its vassal states owned and traded slaves on a vast scale, and sponsored slave hunting in Africa, to the great benefit of much of their elite, but to no benefit at all for the mass of the population. Ditto Spanish and Portugese America, whose economies were stagnating by the 1800's.
The Industrial Revolution was disproportionately the work of nonconformists, the types of people who tended mostly to despise slavery.
It’s more about some in governments hatred of anything that continues strong cultural ties with the EU .
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: The Tory candidates have pitched this around who is the most Thatcherite. Labour have largely tracked back to Blair. Obviously there are some differences but in an extraordinary time we see relatively few new ideas. Is the next 21st century election Thatcherites v Blairites?
Yes Labour is back to winning elections.
This bunch of Tories will leave a mess in large part because of Brexit.
Labour will come in and improve things - and not a single thing they do to achieve this improvement would have been prevented by EU membership.
Reeves is their single greatest asset - she's the first Labour politician ever to make some sort of economic sense.
A heady brew of daftness keeps them unelectable of course, but, as a Tory, I worry a little.
Now you're saying no likes = bad posts.
What is THIS a reflection of?
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1550424899268886531?s=21&t=PJFJWRwxNHlNFyZWf-21_A
If she dribbles out to 1.6+ after Monday's debate I am going back in.
That is insane.
Northeast scored 410 not out as well....
So many policies, what were these?
Government floundering about. Clearly on its last legs.
But with largely unscary opposition headed by an untried bloke who'd focussed mainly on internal party reform without much policy differences. With an impressive Shadow Chancellor.
I was relatively sanguine at the time.
2. Abolishing planned ID Cards
3. "Hug a hoodie" reforms to criminal justice.
4. Blocking Blair's detention without trial.
5. Abolishing Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority and returning supervisory roles back to the Bank of England
6. The "pupil premium" for schools that take disadvantaged children.
7. Free schools
8. Elected Police and Crime Commissioners to be introduced
9. Raising the age for retirement.
10. Reforming the NHS
Those are some of them. Whether you think they're good or bad ideas, were implemented well or badly, is debatable but there were ideas there.
The point is that Cameron didn't win for those policies, he won because he said Labour had crashed the economy.
Race tightening
Sunak scores slightly better on will make a good PM
If Kiwi lamb is better or cheaper than British lamb, why shouldn't we take advantage of that?
> 34% agree Sunak looks like a PM in waiting vs 35% disagree (net -1)
> Starmer: 30% agree vs 39% disagree (net -9)
> Truss: 25% agree vs 37% disagree (net -12) https://t.co/DKqrYzaNqH
LAB: 37% (-1)
CON: 34% (+1)
LDM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 6% (=)
via @OpiniumResearch, 21-22 Jul
(Changes with 8 Jul)
Whether Cameron won for his ideas or not, he had them. What has Starmer got?
Opinium @ObserverUK poll shows public opinion undecided on Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss:
> 43% think Sunak would be good PM vs 45% bad (net -2)
> 36% think Truss would be good PM vs 41% bad (net -6) https://t.co/KC8i1jh1Sh
A Labour government led by Keir Starmer: 42%
A Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak: 36%
via @OpiniumResearch, 21-22 Jul
A Labour government led by Keir Starmer: 40%
A Conservative government led by Liz Truss: 39%
via @OpiniumResearch, 21-22 Jul