I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
Bit unfair on the SLDs. But the point is what happened to Slab in 2015.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.
Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.
Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.
I wonder how much of it's totally irrelevant because of the considerable possibility they're going to win the next GE purely by default.
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
Er, no?
It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK
If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
How?
it's tricky. I'd say: withdraw from the ECHR, change the laws so stupid liberal lawyers can fuck off, start the flights to Rwanda, and make sure you deport A LOT to Rwanda, and make sure some Albanians are on the flights
I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start
But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT? And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways. The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US
The 27th amendment was ratified in, er, 1992, which is considerably less than 50 years ago. HTH!
It was actually submitted to Congress for ratification in 1789
Yes but it was actually ratified, and thus the constitution amended, in 1992.
Please just for once in your miserable life admit that you are wrong.
So its process of ratification was only completed after a process taking 203 years and that somehow suggests a frequent and speedy system of constitutional amendments?
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers
I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
Er, no?
It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK
If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?
They have. And they have visibly failed here. If this continues - and why should it not? indeed, why should it not get worse? - it is a major problem for them. Of course Labour would not do any better, but people are rightly blaming the government
An awkward question is if Britain is such a terrible country why do so many migrants want to come here?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, mobilise the tanks.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
I suggest you read what God and Moses did to the Egyptians in revenge for their treatment of the Israelites
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
If you've ever overheard a sectarian conversation in Scotland, this is roughly the same level
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
I suggest you read what God and Moses did to the Egyptians in revenge for their treatment of the Israeli test
They had cricket in those days? Remarkable. Did the Dead Sea Scrolls report the results daily or weekly?
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?
Er, no?
It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK
If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership
Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?
They have. And they have visibly failed here. If this continues - and why should it not? indeed, why should it not get worse? - it is a major problem for them. Of course Labour would not do any better, but people are rightly blaming the government
An awkward question is if Britain is such a terrible country why do so many migrants want to come here?
Not awkward just fucking moronic. You ever been to a third world shithole?
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
And SLab consequently totally collapsed in 2015.
Teaming up with total shits has a tendency to make you stench.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
I suggest you read what God and Moses did to the Egyptians in revenge for their treatment of the Israelites
That has nothing to do with Christ's teaching as in the new testament, and frankly your claim to be a Christian is undermined in your own words
On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.
Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.
Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.
I wonder how much of it's totally irrelevant because of the considerable possibility they're going to win the next GE purely by default.
Still, better ca canny than end up jamming a spanner into the tree shredder.
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers
I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"
Oops
If Meloni wins the Italian election next month she has pledged to stop the boats coming into Italy and send them back to Africa and Asia
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
Bit unfair on the SLDs. But the point is what happened to Slab in 2015.
Not to mention the Orange Order, BNP and George Galloway.
Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US
The 27th amendment was ratified in, er, 1992, which is considerably less than 50 years ago. HTH!
It was actually submitted to Congress for ratification in 1789
Yes but it was actually ratified, and thus the constitution amended, in 1992.
Please just for once in your miserable life admit that you are wrong.
So its process of ratification was only completed after a process taking 203 years and that somehow suggests a frequent and speedy system of constitutional amendments?
Who said anything about speedy or frequent?
As ever, when you lose an argument on facts, you introduce some new spurious criteria.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Evening everyone, a bit feisty here tonight. Shall we talk about transsexuals instead?
Nah, just some nice restful Clayton diesels. Pretty safe - everyone agrees they were crap. Though some happy memories of coal and industrial trains in my childhood.
Evening everyone, a bit feisty here tonight. Shall we talk about transsexuals instead?
Nah, just some nice restful Clayton diesels. Pretty safe - everyone agrees they were crap. Though some happy memories of coal and industrial trains in my childhood.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
What a childish non Christian response
The Old Testament has plenty of revenge acts and I still consider it part of the Christian bible if not the main part
That is a nonsense
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
I suggest you read what God and Moses did to the Egyptians in revenge for their treatment of the Israelites
Has God told you what he's going to do about energy bills?
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Cut in VAT by 5% is Liz' latest brainwave. My gas bill has trebled. Which would be doubled again if my landlord hadn't kindly put me on the cap, since I'm not covered. Apologies for not giving a f**k about that or about Albanians.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
You keep saying this. Do you have a link or should I just Google?
Evening everyone, a bit feisty here tonight. Shall we talk about transsexuals instead?
Nah, just some nice restful Clayton diesels. Pretty safe - everyone agrees they were crap. Though some happy memories of coal and industrial trains in my childhood.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
Evening everyone, a bit feisty here tonight. Shall we talk about transsexuals instead?
Nah, just some nice restful Clayton diesels. Pretty safe - everyone agrees they were crap. Though some happy memories of coal and industrial trains in my childhood.
Evening everyone, a bit feisty here tonight. Shall we talk about transsexuals instead?
Nah, just some nice restful Clayton diesels. Pretty safe - everyone agrees they were crap. Though some happy memories of coal and industrial trains in my childhood.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury. The Moderates by allying with the Swedish Democrats have a far better chance of removing the Social Democrats than they did before
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers
I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"
Oops
Ultimately, I think the trouble is that all the solutions (ie detaining a thousand people a day indefinetly, or deporting them to Rwanda) involve spending vast amounts of money, and whilst around 50% of people in the UK feel strongly about the issue, they probably regard it as being of minor importance compared with something like rising fuel bills. The tories have no opposition from the right. Labour aren't going to prioritise this as an issue.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
In recent decades, amendments to the US Constitution have had expiration dates so they had only so many years to be ratified. The 27th was, obviously, too early for that precaution.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
In recent decades, amendments to the US Constitution have had expiration dates so they had only so many years to be ratified. The 27th was, obviously, too early for that precaution.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
You keep saying this. Do you have a link or should I just Google?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
As do you, frequently, on how awful England and the English are.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
Sudden jogging of memory: this presumably the same chap.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
You keep saying this. Do you have a link or should I just Google?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
That’s it? Rather pathetic. Ex-head at best.
Pillock, you think it's a revelation that James I is no longer with us? And WTF does "at best" mean here? You think he never was?
I don't see any subsequent head reversing this edict, and as James was the one indisputably great biblical scholar and theologian ever to head the C of E I would have thought he was worth paying attention to.
Now, while everyone knows James Vi / I was "ambiguous" and everyone did at the time, you know as well as I do that James was not publicly referring to his relationship with Buckingham in a sexual sense, more platonic love. Yes, he might have been buggered / buggering senseless in reality but he would never have said that publicly.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
You ain't as religious as me. I'm a fanatic. And you're talking absolute arse, my friend.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
It seems a pity that you're voting for the borgeliga coalition anyway? The reason party leaders sometimes get away with idiotic policies is that they can count on a core vote to support them regardless, as we see in the US with anti-Trump Republicans.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
I myself am a devout Christian and a devotee of Our Lord's principal interests of wine, psilocybin mushrooms and buggery.
I also understand what he meant when he said Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· Seems to be beyond you.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Fair enough but the Moderates can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to the Centre Party or Social Democrats if they collectively gain 3 or 4 Swedish Democrats for each of you they lost to form a broad rightwing government
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
It seems a pity that you're voting for the borgeliga coalition anyway? The reason party leaders sometimes get away with idiotic policies is that they can count on a core vote to support them regardless, as we see in the US with anti-Trump Republicans.
On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.
Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.
Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.
I wonder how much of it's totally irrelevant because of the considerable possibility they're going to win the next GE purely by default.
Yep, imagine whichever collection of numpties is the Tory government in the run up to the next GE bleating about the threat of a coalition of chaos. The sardonic laughter of voters will be deafening.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
Yes but the other night you claimed it was all me focusing on you in some wierd way. Clearly that can't be true can it after the last few nights.
You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms
Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?
For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
Yes but the other night you claimed it was all me focusing on you in some wierd way. Clearly that can't be true can it after the last few nights.
You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms
Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?
For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
First you are the only person on here who rehashed old thread arguments tediously onto new threads with me, hopefully you have stopped that.
Neither SeanF or Marquee Mark like Boris unlike me and as polls show still most Tory voters and members who would have him back as leader and MM has also made clear his loathing of Truss the likely next Tory leader. So neither really represent today's Conservative Party even if I too have some reservations about Truss.
Thirdly, I have on occasion commented on personal posts or liked them but at the end of the day this is PB not Facebook or Instagram. I come here for politics not peoples' personal or social lives
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Fair enough but the Moderates can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to the Centre Party or Social Democrats if they collectively gain 3 or 4 Swedish Democrats for each of you they lost to form a broad rightwing government
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Fair enough but the Moderates can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to the Centre Party or Social Democrats if they collectively gain 3 or 4 Swedish Democrats for each of you they lost to form a broad rightwing government
Gloriously illogical.
Stunningly illogical.
You really are a complete moron.
What is wrong with what HYUFD has said? It could be a good political judgement by the Moderates. Perhaps what is going on is how democracy should work, a response to the will of the people.
Now, while everyone knows James Vi / I was "ambiguous" and everyone did at the time, you know as well as I do that James was not publicly referring to his relationship with Buckingham in a sexual sense, more platonic love. Yes, he might have been buggered / buggering senseless in reality but he would never have said that publicly.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.
And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government
That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
Tough he started it
But back to the main point
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
James VI and I.
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
Disagree. I mean Jesus loved everyone. He certainly loved all the disciples. So if he loved one in particular it means something special.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
Yes but the other night you claimed it was all me focusing on you in some wierd way. Clearly that can't be true can it after the last few nights.
You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms
Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?
For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
First you are the only person on here who rehashed old thread arguments tediously onto new threads with me, hopefully you have stopped that.
Neither SeanF or Marquee Mark like Boris unlike me and as polls show still most Tory voters and members who would have him back as leader and MM has also made clear his loathing of Truss the likely next Tory leader. So neither really represent today's Conservative Party even if I too have some reservations about Truss.
Thirdly, I have on occasion commented on personal posts or liked them but at the end of the day this is PB not Facebook or Instagram. I come here for politics not peoples' personal or social lives
You never rehash. Oh the irony. If you reply to me at the end of a thread I will reply in the next thread. I also, unlike you, do not spend my entire life here, because unlike you, I actually have a life, so naturally I may reply many hours later. Sorry for being human. Does your employer know you spend all this time here?
SeanF and MM comments about you had nothing to do with Boris but about your general obnoxious postings.
Never seen a single reaction to a personal post by you. Go on identify one. And just because it is a politics site does not mean you don't show empathy to fellow posters. Do you do the same to your work colleagues after all that is work not social? I think you have demonstrated you have real problems. Really big ones.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Fair enough but the Moderates can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to the Centre Party or Social Democrats if they collectively gain 3 or 4 Swedish Democrats for each of you they lost to form a broad rightwing government
Gloriously illogical.
Stunningly illogical.
You really are a complete moron.
What is wrong with what HYUFD has said? It could be a good political judgement by the Moderates. Perhaps what is going on is how democracy should work, a response to the will of the people.
Because Swedish politics is all about blocs. The Twat has just written:
“Bloc X can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to Bloc Y if they internally switch 3 or 4 Bloc X from one Bloc X party to another Bloc X party for each of you they lost to form a broad Bloc X government.”
WTF???
You don’t win elections by shedding voters to the governing parties while simply redistributing your voters internally among the opposition bloc.
@hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.
As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
Yes but the other night you claimed it was all me focusing on you in some wierd way. Clearly that can't be true can it after the last few nights.
You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms
Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?
For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
First you are the only person on here who rehashed old thread arguments tediously onto new threads with me, hopefully you have stopped that.
Neither SeanF or Marquee Mark like Boris unlike me and as polls show still most Tory voters and members who would have him back as leader and MM has also made clear his loathing of Truss the likely next Tory leader. So neither really represent today's Conservative Party even if I too have some reservations about Truss.
Thirdly, I have on occasion commented on personal posts or liked them but at the end of the day this is PB not Facebook or Instagram. I come here for politics not peoples' personal or social lives
You never rehash. Oh the irony. If you reply to me at the end of a thread I will reply in the next thread. I also, unlike you, do not spend my entire life here, because unlike you, I actually have a life, so naturally I may reply many hours later. Sorry for being human. Does your employer know you spend all this time here?
SeanF and MM comments about you had nothing to do with Boris but about your general obnoxious postings.
Never seen a single reaction to a personal post by you. Go on identify one. And just because it is a politics site does not mean you don't show empathy to fellow posters. Do you do the same to your work colleagues after all that is work not social? I think you have demonstrated you have real problems. Really big ones.
I don't post during work meetings and I mainly work at home now anyway so work the hours I need in the day to get the jobs I need to do done. However I still unlike you avoid rehashing threads over and over again which is evidence yet again of your vendetta against me.
SeanF and MM are both relative social liberals to me but neither have the personal vendetta and obsession with me you do. It isn't about issues with you, it is about me personally because half your posts on here are obsessed with me. Clearly it gives you something to do in your final years.
At work I talk primarily about work, including to those I manage not surprisingly beyond the basic niceties about weekends etc or any personal problems raised as that is what we are employed for. Just as this is primarily a politics site
Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff. P.s. I think Salmond would take the risk of doing a deal with the Tories. Nicola won't.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum
The Moderates have completely ruined their good name. Classic example of tactical advantage overruling strategic interests. The Social Democrats are laughing their heads off.
Yes but the Social Democrats cannot get into government without the Moderates and the Moderates best chance of getting into government is with the Social Democrats
Christ, you are such an ignorant twat.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
No, just the reality that Sweden might actually have a rightwing government for once rather than a government alternating between Social Democrats who dominate and occasionally Centrists and Liberals as it usually does much to your fury
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?? I was a member of the Moderates for many years. I served as a councillor for the party. I strongly supported Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. I will still (probably) vote for one of the “borgerlig” parties.
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yes, you are a Centrist Liberal Scottish Nationalist at most, so you can't stand the fact the Moderates may now form a rightwing government with the Swedish Democrats
“Can’t stand”?!?
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Fair enough but the Moderates can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to the Centre Party or Social Democrats if they collectively gain 3 or 4 Swedish Democrats for each of you they lost to form a broad rightwing government
Gloriously illogical.
Stunningly illogical.
You really are a complete moron.
What is wrong with what HYUFD has said? It could be a good political judgement by the Moderates. Perhaps what is going on is how democracy should work, a response to the will of the people.
Because Swedish politics is all about blocs. The Twat has just written:
“Bloc X can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to Bloc Y if they internally switch 3 or 4 Bloc X from one Bloc X party to another Bloc X party for each of you they lost to form a broad Bloc X government.”
WTF???
You don’t win elections by shedding voters to the governing parties while simply redistributing your voters internally among the opposition bloc.
You do if you go from a coalition of 1/3 of the vote to over 45% of the vote by adding an extra party to that opposition bloc which currently is 2nd in polls
Comments
Please just for once in your miserable life admit that you are wrong.
Yes it does.
You say you follow Christ and therefore the new testament is your bible and even suggesting revenge is 100% non Christian
I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"
Oops
The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
Teaming up with total shits has a tendency to make you stench.
As ever, when you lose an argument on facts, you introduce some new spurious criteria.
I never remember the Pope saying that.
As for the Queen, did she co-opt in Jesus as a fellow queen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVFYCMEoi9A
Anything but @HYUFD's bizarre world view.
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
My gas bill has trebled. Which would be doubled again if my landlord hadn't kindly put me on the cap, since I'm not covered.
Apologies for not giving a f**k about that or about Albanians.
usually does much to your fury. The Moderates by allying with the Swedish Democrats have a far better chance of removing the Social Democrats than they did before
"You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
The tories have no opposition from the right. Labour aren't going to prioritise this as an issue.
(Those expiration dates haven't completely solved the problems as the history of the ERA shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment )
You are a complete ignoramous. You mouth off about topics of which you either know nothing or have grossly misunderstood.
Yet 200 constitutional amendments are proposes by members of Congress on average every 2 year Congressional term
http://www.memorialsinportsmouth.co.uk/old-portsmouth/buckingham.htm
I don't see any subsequent head reversing this edict, and as James was the one indisputably great biblical scholar and theologian ever to head the C of E I would have thought he was worth paying attention to.
Now, while everyone knows James Vi / I was "ambiguous" and everyone did at the time, you know as well as I do that James was not publicly referring to his relationship with Buckingham in a sexual sense, more platonic love. Yes, he might have been buggered / buggering senseless in reality but he would never have said that publicly.
And you're talking absolute arse, my friend.
Huh?
I am an observer. I am observing the ginormous error of judgment made by Ulf Kristersson.
I, unlike you, am a democrat. I will accept the judgement of the electorate. I will not however besmirch my own soul by giving succour to xenophobes and racists.
I will never vote Moderate again unless and until they disown the Sweden Democrats.
Don't tell me there isn't any good music released nowadays.
(I thought something lighter was needed to cam things down a bit.)
As a Catholic, the OT is certainly second fiddle to the NT so my knowledge of it is scant, especially when it comes to trans issues.
I also understand what he meant when he said Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· Seems to be beyond you.
M and KD are in bed with SD = no thank you
L are equivocal = no thank you
C are 100% anti-SD
So, either C, MP or S for me. Probably C.
You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms
Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?
For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
The perky supply teacher is walking in.
God bless Ringo Starr.
Steady, unshowy rhythm.
Neither SeanF or Marquee Mark like Boris unlike me and as polls show still most Tory voters and members who would have him back as leader and MM has also made clear his loathing of Truss the likely next Tory leader. So neither really represent today's Conservative Party even if I too have some reservations about Truss.
Thirdly, I have on occasion commented on personal posts or liked them but at the end of the day this is PB not Facebook or Instagram. I come here for politics not peoples' personal or social lives
Stunningly illogical.
You really are a complete moron.
Well apols. but your boy does like to get his knob out.
The perky supply teacher is in for a baptism of fire.
SeanF and MM comments about you had nothing to do with Boris but about your general obnoxious postings.
Never seen a single reaction to a personal post by you. Go on identify one. And just because it is a politics site does not mean you don't show empathy to fellow posters. Do you do the same to your work colleagues after all that is work not social? I think you have demonstrated you have real problems. Really big ones.
“Bloc X can afford to lose 1 or 2 of you to Bloc Y if they internally switch 3 or 4 Bloc X from one Bloc X party to another Bloc X party for each of you they lost to form a broad Bloc X government.”
WTF???
You don’t win elections by shedding voters to the governing parties while simply redistributing your voters internally among the opposition bloc.
Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)
SeanF and MM are both relative social liberals to me but neither have the personal vendetta and obsession with me you do. It isn't about issues with you, it is about me personally because half your posts on here are obsessed with me. Clearly it gives you something to do in your final years.
At work I talk primarily about work, including to those I manage not surprisingly beyond the basic niceties about weekends etc or any personal problems raised as that is what we are employed for. Just as this is primarily a politics site
Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
P.s. I think Salmond would take the risk of doing a deal with the Tories. Nicola won't.