Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Honestly, I am not indifferent to it, just more concerned at other issues like the trashing of the UK economy.
Apologies if I offended.
None taken. Some on here seek to shut down debate because “No Debate” was a key part of getting such policies through by stealth.
Meanwhile, fearless champion of Trans rights:
Q - "Do you think trans people who are convicted of crimes like that (sex crimes) should be in women's jails?"
Who on here seeks to shut down debate (about anything)?
@Heathener for one. Most are sensible, if topics do not interest them (for example cricket in my case) they skim over the posts and move on. Others whinge “why are you posting about this again? It’s a non-issue!” Tell Sturgeon that. A bin fire on a key policy by one of our most able politicians is non-trivial.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
Except that it is not "utter nonsense". I am sure that all union leaders would be delighted with that result and if they can assist in its expedition they will. And they are.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
You missed out the NHS, the BMA, and public sector gold-plated pensions. You're losing your touch.
Quantum-Systems GmbH has announced the delivery of 105 additional long-endurance reconnaissance drones of the Vector type for military support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine reported. The order is funded by the German government. https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1620368920568815616
And “Brexit Britain” has been among the most robust supporters of Ukraine.
That looks strange - aha Verhofstadt (?) - typo.
To me that's quite comical, in its way quite like the Boris editorial - provocative statements from a once-upon-a-time leader.
I'd say he's neglecting quite a lot of history, such as Merkel in Germany pushing Nordstream through right in the teeth of EU opposition, which extended to legal action from the European Commission iirc. I think that demonstrated that Brussels did not have rights to prevent it.
Plus the way the establishment, with their centralised vision, has Balkanised EU countries between East, West and South.
If there is to be more unity, I don't think (fortunately) that it will follow the old Verhofstadt vision.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
Yup.
All of the Brexiteers whining about how bad THIS Brexit is are still not reconciled to the fact that ALL Brexit are shit, even to those who support parts of it in principle, as they have incompatible aims.
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Having read it I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you Nerys will shortly be telling us it's pretty accurate as far as Eastleigh goes.
It's a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
The poignant thing is that, in many ways, it's a lovely vision. Who could possibly not want that for a country? Who wouldn't be frustrated with people dragging their feet about making it happen?
It just hasn't turned out that way, and it's unlikely that it could have turned out that way. Hey ho.
I personally think that Daniel Hannan is a romantic who should have gone into a different job. Similarly with Boris Johnson and entertainment.
Not to say you can't be a romantic who goes into politics, but you have to a big grasp of detail, at the same time, to carry that off. There were a couple of people like that in years gone by, and there are still a handful vaguely resembling it.
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Having read it I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you Nerys will shortly be telling us it's pretty accurate as far as Eastleigh goes.
It's a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
The poignant thing is that, in many ways, it's a lovely vision. Who could possibly not want that for a country? Who wouldn't be frustrated with people dragging their feet about making it happen?
It just hasn't turned out that way, and it's unlikely that it could have turned out that way. Hey ho.
I personally think that Daniel Hannan is a romantic who should have gone into a different job. Similarly with Boris Johnson and entertainment.
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU.
Lol. There is always an exception. What is your business if I may ask?
One of the interesting things about current strikes is perhaps how few of the striking Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Does this give Starmer manoeuvring room?
To me that says stuff about possible politicisation of non-political Unions, and opens up interesting politics in that arena.
Unions not affiliated driving strikes include the RCN, the NEU, the BMA, RMT, and the ASCL (School and College Leaders), and others. That is a mixture of non-party political and left-of-Labour (eg RMT affiliate to TUSC).
These are Unions affiliated to Labour - all eleven of them:
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers Community - A union for workers in all industries and sectors CWU - Communication Workers Union – post and telecommunications FBU - Fire Brigades Union – firefighters and other workers within fire and rescue services GMB - For general workers in public and private sectors MU - Musicians Union – performers, writers and teachers in the music industry TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association – railways, London Underground, travel, haulage, shipping UNISON - The public service union for all those providing services to the public whether employed in the public, private or voluntary sectors Unite - For general workers in the public and private sectors USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers – retail, distributive and related industries
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Having read it I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you Nerys will shortly be telling us it's pretty accurate as far as Eastleigh goes.
It's a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
The poignant thing is that, in many ways, it's a lovely vision. Who could possibly not want that for a country? Who wouldn't be frustrated with people dragging their feet about making it happen?
It just hasn't turned out that way, and it's unlikely that it could have turned out that way. Hey ho.
I personally think that Daniel Hannan is a romantic who should have gone into a different job. Similarly with Boris Johnson and entertainment.
Ah, but both have ‘visions’!
and without detail, sadly. Attlee and Roosevelt, for one, had visions with detail.
That's a nice list. I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
One of the interesting things about current strikes is perhaps how few of the striking Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Does this give Starmer manoeuvring room?
To me that says stuff about possible politicisation of non-political Unions, and opens up interesting politics in that arena.
Unions not affiliated driving strikes include the RCN, the NEU, the BMA, RMT, and the ASCL (School and College Leaders), and others. That is a mixture of non-party political and left-of-Labour (eg RMT affiliate to TUSC).
These are Unions affiliated to Labour - all eleven of them:
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers Community - A union for workers in all industries and sectors CWU - Communication Workers Union – post and telecommunications FBU - Fire Brigades Union – firefighters and other workers within fire and rescue services GMB - For general workers in public and private sectors MU - Musicians Union – performers, writers and teachers in the music industry TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association – railways, London Underground, travel, haulage, shipping UNISON - The public service union for all those providing services to the public whether employed in the public, private or voluntary sectors Unite - For general workers in the public and private sectors USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers – retail, distributive and related industries
Correction - Missed out NUM who affiliate to Labour. They are still a thing.
Hmmm. Does it also partly undermine Sunak's possible allegations of strikes as being people vs Labour?
Can Starmer portray that as Govt vs Professionals?
One of the interesting things about current strikes is perhaps how few of the striking Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Does this give Starmer manoeuvring room?
To me that says stuff about possible politicisation of non-political Unions, and opens up interesting politics in that arena.
Unions not affiliated driving strikes include the RCN, the NEU, the BMA, RMT, and the ASCL (School and College Leaders), and others. That is a mixture of non-party political and left-of-Labour (eg RMT affiliate to TUSC).
These are Unions affiliated to Labour - all eleven of them:
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers Community - A union for workers in all industries and sectors CWU - Communication Workers Union – post and telecommunications FBU - Fire Brigades Union – firefighters and other workers within fire and rescue services GMB - For general workers in public and private sectors MU - Musicians Union – performers, writers and teachers in the music industry TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association – railways, London Underground, travel, haulage, shipping UNISON - The public service union for all those providing services to the public whether employed in the public, private or voluntary sectors Unite - For general workers in the public and private sectors USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers – retail, distributive and related industries
GMB - General, Municipal and Boilermakers
My dad quit the Boilermakers when they merged with the General & Municipal. He didn't want to be in a union for unskilled labourers, whose priority would be shrinking pay differentials to his detriment.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
IMF predicts UK only major economy to shrink this year. Inevitably lots of attention. But hard to see what's driving forecast, nor why deteriorated since Autumn.
This will be a tough year, with falling living standards and stagnant economy. But not sure we learnt much new today
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
Every excuse made by proponents of socialism has been along those lines. If only XXXX had been in charge.
That is a failure to understand that the system itself, if it is superior, will be resilient enough regardless of who is at the tiller.
And “Brexit Britain” has been among the most robust supporters of Ukraine.
That looks strange - aha Verhofstadt (?) - typo.
To me that's quite comical, in its way quite like the Boris editorial - provocative statements from a once-upon-a-time leader.
I'd say he's neglecting quite a lot of history, such as Merkel in Germany pushing Nordstream through right in the teeth of EU opposition, which extended to legal action from the European Commission iirc. I think that demonstrated that Brussels did not have rights to prevent it.
Plus the way the establishment, with their centralised vision, has Balkanised EU countries between East, West and South.
If there is to be more unity, I don't think (fortunately) that it will follow the old Verhofstadt vision.
Verhofstadt is the arch-federalist who is always wrong.
I think a much more relevant consideration for Putin was France and Germany's spineless response to Russia's 2014 invasion, driven by French appeasement and German greed.
But for some reason Verhofstadt doesn't mention those?
One of the interesting things about current strikes is perhaps how few of the striking Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Does this give Starmer manoeuvring room?
To me that says stuff about possible politicisation of non-political Unions, and opens up interesting politics in that arena.
Unions not affiliated driving strikes include the RCN, the NEU, the BMA, RMT, and the ASCL (School and College Leaders), and others. That is a mixture of non-party political and left-of-Labour (eg RMT affiliate to TUSC).
These are Unions affiliated to Labour - all eleven of them:
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers Community - A union for workers in all industries and sectors CWU - Communication Workers Union – post and telecommunications FBU - Fire Brigades Union – firefighters and other workers within fire and rescue services GMB - For general workers in public and private sectors MU - Musicians Union – performers, writers and teachers in the music industry TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association – railways, London Underground, travel, haulage, shipping UNISON - The public service union for all those providing services to the public whether employed in the public, private or voluntary sectors Unite - For general workers in the public and private sectors USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers – retail, distributive and related industries
Correction - Missed out NUM who affiliate to Labour. They are still a thing.
Hmmm. Does it also partly undermine Sunak's possible allegations of strikes as being people vs Labour?
Can Starmer portray that as Govt vs Professionals?
I wonder how much public awareness there is on the ending of links between Labour and the unions? Although they may no longer be formally linked they often appear to be on their side.
There's an obvious question that needs asking about this IMF story: how accurate are their predictions usually? How did their predictions of growth this far out match the reality as it happened?
It's a forecast. They are always prisoners of events. So the valid question to ask if "the IMF prediction is complete nonsense as Nerys hopes is why?
The IMF have no skin in UK politics or even pro / anti EU. They aren't politicised, not lobbying, not pushing a specific ideology other than money = good.
It laughable when people dismiss impartial economists - especially the big global ones - when they dislike the message.
Where these things annoy me is on the morning of a GDP release by the ONS, the news reports what it's expected to be. Why not just wait to here what the ONS say?
Yes we had that whole "UK expected to fall into a recession" farce in the days leading up to the October and November releases. If they'd waited until 7am the next day they'd look much less stupid.
I think the IMF are going to be rewriting history around August of this year and big up their "the UK is on the right track" comment and suggest that actually, it really was more of that than they realised or something along those lines.
That's a nice list. I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
I disagree, it's a peculiar list - the top 10 are entirely city urban. and mainly Southern - apart from one.
In the entire list of 22, in England there is nothing north of the M4 or South of the Humber, except for one in Stratford on Avon and one in Manchester.
The most interesting bit of that (I would take anything Mr Hands says with a large pinch of salt), is this:
...Eddie Truell, a City veteran and strong Brexit supporter who set up the private equity firm Duke Street Capital and is co-founder of the Pension Insurance Corporation, expressed disappointment at the speed of deregulation in the UK’s financial services sector.
“I hoped we would see faster deregulation than has been the case,” he said, also speaking on Today. “We saw an enormous positive explosion in the City after big bang in the 1980s: I was hoping we would see the same thing.”... I'd be interested in @Cyclefree 's reaction to that (fairly risible) comparison.
None of those arguments sound particularly convincing. You could use the same points to make a positive case that price signals are more effective in the UK and that the labour market has more upside.
Ridiculous list. Four or five of the best pubs in the UK are in Northern Ireland?
Seriously? And the Bull and Last (who they?) in North London but no The Flask or Holly Bush or Eagle or...
I mean really.
I'd concur on the Holly Bush. It's been some years since I was based in London, but I'm struggling for others except for one or two down by the Thames in Hammersmith / Chiswick.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
Every excuse made by proponents of socialism has been along those lines. If only XXXX had been in charge.
That is a failure to understand that the system itself, if it is superior, will be resilient enough regardless of who is at the tiller.
I might not be a great fan of socialism but to deny that it can and does work in some situations seem perverse. Norway is, by any reasonable measure, a socialist country (indeed it was once described by a Swedish minister as 'the last f**king communist country in Europe') but no one would deny that is brand of socialism works very well. Personally I think the sacrifices that have to be made by the individual in terms of personal freedom are too much but many (most even?) would be happy with them. The same goes for forms of Brexit, forms of capitalism, forms of pretty much any social and economic movement. It is just that no system is perfect and all have to be adapted to the circumstances at the time.
One thing you can be sure of is that had the 2016 referendum gone the other way but all else remained the same - Covid, Ukraine etc. - we would now be having exactly the same discussions but from the other direction.
And Scott 'n' paste would have been mercifully silent for months.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
I don't think it does give anyone except party managers more influence. But maybe that is me being too absolutist
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
Every excuse made by proponents of socialism has been along those lines. If only XXXX had been in charge.
That is a failure to understand that the system itself, if it is superior, will be resilient enough regardless of who is at the tiller.
I might not be a great fan of socialism but to deny that it can and does work in some situations seem perverse. Norway is, by any reasonable measure, a socialist country (indeed it was once described by a Swedish minister as 'the last f**king communist country in Europe') but no one would deny that is brand of socialism works very well. Personally I think the sacrifices that have to be made by the individual in terms of personal freedom are too much but many (most even?) would be happy with them. The same goes for forms of Brexit, forms of capitalism, forms of pretty much any social and economic movement. It is just that no system is perfect and all have to be adapted to the circumstances at the time.
One thing you can be sure of is that had the 2016 referendum gone the other way but all else remained the same - Covid, Ukraine etc. - we would now be having exactly the same discussions but from the other direction.
And Scott 'n' paste would have been mercifully silent for months.
Not exactly the same. Around a third of the change in opinion against Brexit is demographic.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO is likely a necessary condition for any peace agreement, as it's the only way to prevent a repeat.
That's complex, but it would certainly be different from admitting Ukraine in the middle of a conflict.
Which would almost certainly lead to WW3 now Boris seems to have forgotten
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Dead Ringers will be delighted. Their Truss is a work of genius.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
Why should they not be represented in Parliament (if, under PR, they maintain such a level of support) ?
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Told ya. Next PM. Nailed on.
No, off to make money on the US lecture circuit and join a free market think tank I expect.
She may even stand down as an MP at the next general election
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
That's a nice list. I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
Ha ha! A couple of decades ago, I worked on systems for a chain of mid-range restaurants, Italian. Before each restaurant opened, they’d do three or four ‘pre-opening’ nights, where everyone who was involved with the restaurant was encouraged to turn up with friends and family, for a free meal in exchange for feedback on food and service. Drinks were charged at half price. Sometimes they didn’t yet have the licence though, and everyone got smashed for free!
That's a nice list. I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
I disagree, it's a peculiar list - the top 10 are entirely city urban. and mainly Southern - apart from one.
In the entire list of 22, in England there is nothing north of the M4 or South of the Humber, except for one in Stratford on Avon and one in Manchester.
Homework required, Timeout.
It's 'nice' in the sense that reading about nice pubs is nice. I do accept it's subjective though.
Timeout is a London publication and you get the sense that this is very much where the compilers happen to have been to outside London. I could also compile such a list and mine would be almost the reverse geographically.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
Except that it is not "utter nonsense". I am sure that all union leaders would be delighted with that result and if they can assist in its expedition they will. And they are.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
You missed out the NHS, the BMA, and public sector gold-plated pensions. You're losing your touch.
Lol. I didn't need to as you just did it for me Al. I am disappointed that you didn't mention my other PB hobbyhorses of the absurdities of a con called Brexit; my loathing of Boris Johnson (aka Bozo and The Clown) and his mirror image in the form of Jeremy Corbyn; and the sinister aspects of the Scottish National Party and some of its racist supporters who post on here.
You will also note that I have always been an admirer of SKS, even though I don't particularly want a Labour government.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Told ya. Next PM. Nailed on.
These kinds of stories reinforce the view that certain politicians are on some kind of spectrum or other. To have skin so thick that all the ridicule of last Autumn culminating in a forcible ejection from the post after a little over a month just washes off, either suggests someone utterly ideologically driven, or someone who really doesn’t do the usual range of human emotions. In Truss’s position I’d be long out of politics by now, probably tending a vineyard or running a string of Airbnbs.
That's a nice list. I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
I disagree, it's a peculiar list - the top 10 are entirely city urban. and mainly Southern - apart from one.
In the entire list of 22, in England there is nothing north of the M4 or South of the Humber, except for one in Stratford on Avon and one in Manchester.
Homework required, Timeout.
It's 'nice' in the sense that reading about nice pubs is nice. I do accept it's subjective though.
Timeout is a London publication and you get the sense that this is very much where the compilers happen to have been to outside London. I could also compile such a list and mine would be almost the reverse geographically.
And one of the writers clearly lives in Telegraph Hill or has a friend there.
I'd just add that the distortions in #Ireland's #GDP data make it all the more important to compare UK growth with individual EU economies (Germany, France etc), rather than the EU (or eurozone) aggregates 🤓 Quote Tweet
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 @JosephPolitano · Jan 29 Irish GDP data is increasingly driven by the island's status as a global tax haven, especially for tech companies.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
Except that it is not "utter nonsense". I am sure that all union leaders would be delighted with that result and if they can assist in its expedition they will. And they are.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
I don’t think that is right at all. Unions should have a place in any economy as a corrective to the disproportionate power of capital. The alternative is the liberal enforcement of individual rights, employment tribunals etc, which are only effective to a limited extent. Largely because you have to pay people like me to present your case in an increasingly complex labour law environment.
Of course there are unions with your “outdated and utopian” views of socialism but there are many more pragmatic and centrist examples. Unions only make the news when they go on strike and, as an employment law practitioner of more than 20 years, that’s not often. The current circumstances are a once in a generation occurrence - literally.
In which case it is either you being uncharacteristically naïve or me being uncharacteristically alarmist (just call me Leon). It is only feels a "once in a lifetime" because it hasn't happened for a while. I hope I am wrong, but there is a large enough number of individuals within the Trades Unions who wish to be much more political, and I expect to see many more politicised strikes as they feel their musculature growing. The extreme took over the Tories, and briefly held the leadership of the Labour Party. To imagine it can't happen across the unions is extremist in its naivety.
I wonder if he will do a video in a year saying sorry we got that wrong.
The local newspapers around here (Worthing Herald, Chichester Observer and others) now have a regular monthly column to tell readers which shops have closed.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Told ya. Next PM. Nailed on.
No, off to make money on the US lecture circuit and join a free market think tank I expect.
She may even stand down as an MP at the next general election
I think it is unprecedented for a country to capture tanks faster than they lose them at scale. Certainly since the Germans in WWI stuffed up tank production and were using British tanks they captured.
I'm backing Liz to put the Great back into Britain. If there 's one person who can identify where Brexit's assumptions have gone wrong, and set us on a more moderate, pragmatic path, it's Elizabeth, and I've known and worked with her for several years.
She's fresh, a highly networked self-starter full of beans, an expert in delivery and disaster zone management, and I commend this speech to other honourable members.
I think it is unprecedented for a country to capture tanks faster than they lose them at scale. Certainly since the Germans in WWI stuffed up tank production and were using British tanks they captured.
Yes, but it’s been a while since an invading force got memed in speeded-up videos with Yakety Sax as the backing music, showing tanks out of fuel, out of ammo, stuck between trees, in ditches, and otherwise rendered temporalily unserviceable due to the negligence of their own crews.
I'm backing Liz to put the Great back into Britain. If there 's one person who can identify where Brexit's assumptions have gone wrong, and set us on a more moderate, pragmatic path, it's Elizabeth, who I've known and worked with for several years.
She's fresh, a highly networked self-starter full of beans, an expert in delivery and disaster zone management, and I commend this speech to other honourable members.
You’d be very lucky to get Liz to work for you. Everyone here is mad about her work. She was fired with enthusiasm!
I think it is unprecedented for a country to capture tanks faster than they lose them at scale. Certainly since the Germans in WWI stuffed up tank production and were using British tanks they captured.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
Why should they not be represented in Parliament (if, under PR, they maintain such a level of support) ?
With the exception of France, virtually very European country uses some kind of proportional system, as do Australia, New Zealand and various other Commonwealth countries. The point is that PR is hardly a dangerous experiment- it is normal in most democratic states and with good reason.
It always slightly surprises me that the Tories claim to be a free market party, when they prefer to keep an electoral system that is anything but free. If the punters vote for a point of view I may disagree with, I do not have the right to suppress those votes. I must campaign openly to change their minds. The problem is that "safe seats" are just so tempting and the result is an out of touch and complacent political class.
If you believe in free markets, then you must accept them in political choice too. Competition should see off the least valuable ideas in pretty quick order. The good news is that the Conservatives very bad ideas and abysmal leadership can now be defeated even in an electoral system that is somewhat biased in their favour.
After that we can talk about how we improve a system that let these no-hopers stay in charge for so long. PR is just the tip of a programme of necessary reform of how we govern ourselves. King Charles III clearly understands a storm is coming, and indeed no institution can remain unquestioned -from schools, the NHS, local government, and indeed political parties, Parliament and the Monarchy itself- after the past catastrophic years of wretched political incompetence, economic ignorance and growing corruption in our governing institutions.
Now that would be a Brexit dividend worth having. Albeit not quite in the way that its proponents hoped for.
A radical wind may bring the reform that it is now clear that our country needs.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
Why should they not be represented in Parliament (if, under PR, they maintain such a level of support) ?
With the exception of France, virtually very European country uses some kind of proportional system, as do Australia, New Zealand and various other Commonwealth countries. The point is that PR is hardly a dangerous experiment- it is normal in most democratic states and with good reason.
It always slightly surprises me that the Tories claim to be a free market party, when they prefer to keep an electoral system that is anything but free. If the punters vote for a point of view I may disagree with, I do not have the right to suppress those votes. I must campaign openly to change their minds. The problem is that "safe seats" are just so tempting and the result is an out of touch and complacent political class.
If you believe in free markets, then you must accept them in political choice too. Competition should see off the least valuable ideas in pretty quick order. The good news is that the Conservatives very bad ideas and abysmal leadership can now be defeated even in an electoral system that is somewhat biased in their favour.
After that we can talk about how we improve a system that let these no-hopers stay in charge for so long. PR is just the tip of a programme of necessary reform of how we govern ourselves. King Charles III clearly understands a storm is coming, and indeed no institution can remain unquestioned -from schools, the NHS, local government, and indeed political parties, Parliament and the Monarchy itself- after the past catastrophic years of wretched political incompetence, economic ignorance and growing corruption in our governing institutions.
Now that would be a Brexit dividend worth having. Albeit not quite in the way that its proponents hoped for.
A radical wind may bring the reform that it is now clear that our country needs.
The problem with PR (well, one of them) is that the donkey-with-a-rosette syndrome on both sides guarantees both the Tories and Labour 25% minimum in all circumstances, which even under PR leaves them as the top two. - and now, under PR, to form a government all they need to do is convince politicians of other parties, not voters.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
Our school haven't said anything about strikes this week, so I presume the teachers there aren't striking tomorrow.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, normally I'm very against strikes on principle but quite frankly when the Government are choosing to give double-digit inflationary pay increases to those who are not working for a living but are expecting those who go out to work to get real terms pay cuts, then I find it hard to object to people striking if that's their choice.
If the Triple Lock etc were being restrained by the same amount as the Government is expecting pay to be, then that would be one thing, but its not appropriate for those who are working for a living to be getting less than those who are not. That is about unConservative as I understood it as it can get.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least and just to begin with, as Dura Ace says, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Under Article 5, there is a vague requirement to aid the attacked member state. This aid can take any form the aid giver chooses. They could just send a sternly worded diplomatic note.
This is deliberate - NATO was conceived as the reverse of the old style alliances which locked countries into confrontation.
Our school haven't said anything about strikes this week, so I presume the teachers there aren't striking tomorrow.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, normally I'm very against strikes on principle but quite frankly when the Government are choosing to give double-digit inflationary pay increases to those who are not working for a living but are expecting those who go out to work to get real terms pay cuts, then I find it hard to object to people striking if that's their choice.
If the Triple Lock etc were being restrained by the same amount as the Government is expecting pay to be, then that would be one thing, but its not appropriate for those who are working for a living to be getting less than those who are not. That is about unConservative as I understood it as it can get.
Our school is partially open - my son is going in, but other kids are not. One mother has one kid going in, the other staying at home. Unfortunately the one going in hates school, and the one staying at home loves school, so the kid who hates school is going to have a 'sick' day, as otherwise there'll be a tactical nuclear explosion in her house (her words)
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
I don't think it does give anyone except party managers more influence. But maybe that is me being too absolutist
Party list would do that, but STV wouldn't. In fact it would give them less than they have under FPTP.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least and just to begin with, as Dura Ace says, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Under Article 5, there is a vague requirement to aid the attacked member state. This aid can take any form the aid giver chooses. They could just send a sternly worded diplomatic note.
This is deliberate - NATO was conceived as the reverse of the old style alliances which locked countries into confrontation.
And yet, why are the Scandinavian and quasi-Scandindavian nations of Sweden and Finland wanting to join ? Absolute deterrence, which is rather different from this.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
I don't think it does give anyone except party managers more influence. But maybe that is me being too absolutist
It depends whether you think the status quo has much to commend it
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less.
This is not how the economy works!
Paying teachers more will require tax rises or cuts elsewhere, that will other people poorer. That is the immediate effect.
Now you may say the case for teachers or some other public sector employees being paid more is worth the (most likely) tax rise or (less likely) cuts elsewhere. The teaching unions have to lay out a business plan for it just as I do when I make the case for members of my team getting pay rises. What additional responsibilities will they be taking on, what productivity gains can we expect from them and what will the end result be from the pay rises.
For nurses, the actual numbers are pretty easy to see, pay them a bit more, increase retention rates, increase training places due to better and more reliable staffing and ease the short term healthcare crunch and get the million "sick" back into work. That the government is unable to see this means they are still beholden to treasury groupthink. For teachers the case is much, much less clear cut. Teacher salaries in the UK are comparable to similar countries across Europe and there's not exactly a huge international market for teachers as there is for healthcare workers. There's also huge quality issues surrounding teaching and education in general, the sector seems to have decided bells and whistles like interactive whiteboards and touch screen tablets will make up for not actually teaching the kids very much, that may or may not be the fault of the DoE but that's where we're at.
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU.
I suspect you've logged off now but I would genuinely like to know how Brexit has made your business (antiquarian book sales?) 'inordinately easier'.
I think it is unprecedented for a country to capture tanks faster than they lose them at scale. Certainly since the Germans in WWI stuffed up tank production and were using British tanks they captured.
Mind you, it also suggests that the Ukrainian armed forces human losses are about a third of Russian, but that is still a tragically high number. I would guess 40-50,000 dead and maybe twice that wounded, with Russian casualties of 190k of which 120K dead, adding the civilian deaths we can probably say that the total casualties are of the order of at least 300 thousand. To put this into context, it is more than the total in Afghanistan for all the years between 2001 and 2021 and double the casualties in Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1999. At over 5 million, the number of Ukrainian refugees is also more than twice the Yugo wars.
But don´t worry, we will delay sending aircraft in the same way as we delayed tanks.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
The UK has not had a Far Right PM by any reasonable definition. And I say that as someone who thinks all 4 of the latest PMs have been useless and unfit for office.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
Why should they not be represented in Parliament (if, under PR, they maintain such a level of support) ?
Come off it, it's bad enough that HYUFD has to put up with Labour, the SNP, and the LDs in parliament without adding more parties to the mix.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
Not gonna happen. Starmer will be a car crash.
You mean Rejoining? It's gone - Starmer will not support it.
Trying to strike a non-partisan note - I don't think anybody would find it easy to run the UK at the moment.
But Sweden looks like it's a playground for the Russian security services at the moment with that idiotic Danish provocateur burning Korans willy nilly. We've all got problems.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least and just to begin with, as Dura Ace says, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Under Article 5, there is a vague requirement to aid the attacked member state. This aid can take any form the aid giver chooses. They could just send a sternly worded diplomatic note.
This is deliberate - NATO was conceived as the reverse of the old style alliances which locked countries into confrontation.
And yet, why are the Scandinavian and quasi-Scandindavian nations of Sweden and Finland wanting to join ? Absolute deterrence, which is rather different from this.
The voluntary aspect is the core strength of NATO. Because nothing is enforced, countries are *more* inclined to step up that try and work their way out of obligations
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
The idea that May, Johnson or Truss are "far right" is laughable. The far right means fascism.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
Why should they not be represented in Parliament (if, under PR, they maintain such a level of support) ?
With the exception of France, virtually very European country uses some kind of proportional system, as do Australia, New Zealand and various other Commonwealth countries. The point is that PR is hardly a dangerous experiment- it is normal in most democratic states and with good reason.
It always slightly surprises me that the Tories claim to be a free market party, when they prefer to keep an electoral system that is anything but free. If the punters vote for a point of view I may disagree with, I do not have the right to suppress those votes. I must campaign openly to change their minds. The problem is that "safe seats" are just so tempting and the result is an out of touch and complacent political class.
If you believe in free markets, then you must accept them in political choice too. Competition should see off the least valuable ideas in pretty quick order. The good news is that the Conservatives very bad ideas and abysmal leadership can now be defeated even in an electoral system that is somewhat biased in their favour.
After that we can talk about how we improve a system that let these no-hopers stay in charge for so long. PR is just the tip of a programme of necessary reform of how we govern ourselves. King Charles III clearly understands a storm is coming, and indeed no institution can remain unquestioned -from schools, the NHS, local government, and indeed political parties, Parliament and the Monarchy itself- after the past catastrophic years of wretched political incompetence, economic ignorance and growing corruption in our governing institutions.
Now that would be a Brexit dividend worth having. Albeit not quite in the way that its proponents hoped for.
A radical wind may bring the reform that it is now clear that our country needs.
The problem with PR (well, one of them) is that the donkey-with-a-rosette syndrome on both sides guarantees both the Tories and Labour 25% minimum in all circumstances, which even under PR leaves them as the top two. - and now, under PR, to form a government all they need to do is convince politicians of other parties, not voters.
It also elevates parties over individual representatives, which is a recipe for orthodox group think. It's not quite as bad as government by undemocratic bureaucracy, as with EU governance, but definitely in that direction and supported by the same people.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
By that token you'd have to call Brown and Blair far right, or have you forgotten about policies like making migrants do volunteer work to prove they are committed to "protecting and enhancing the British way of life"?
I'd just add that the distortions in #Ireland's #GDP data make it all the more important to compare UK growth with individual EU economies (Germany, France etc), rather than the EU (or eurozone) aggregates 🤓 Quote Tweet
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 @JosephPolitano · Jan 29 Irish GDP data is increasingly driven by the island's status as a global tax haven, especially for tech companies.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
What ludicrous rubbish. May for starters wasn't even on the right of the Conservative Party, Leadsom was the rightwing candidate in 2016 for the Conservative leadership not her.
Truss was a libertarian not far right, Johnson One Nation on most issues bar Brexit.
The main rightwing party in France is now far right Le Pen's not Les Republicains. The main far right party in Italy is now the far right Lega Nord of PM Meloni not Forza Italy.
The main centre right party in Spain, the Popular Party is ideologically not much different to the Conservatives except on Brexit. Even the CDU in Germany is more rightwing under Merz than it was under Merkel. In Sweden the centre right Moderate led government relies on the far right Sweden Democrats to stay in power.
In Poland the government is led by the Nationalist right Law and Justice too
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
By that token you'd have to call Brown and Blair far right, or have you forgotten about policies like making migrants do volunteer work to prove they are committed to "protecting and enhancing the British way of life"?
In Denmark you have attempts at limits on how many people from a given minority can live in a given housing block…..
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least and just to begin with, as Dura Ace says, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Under Article 5, there is a vague requirement to aid the attacked member state. This aid can take any form the aid giver chooses. They could just send a sternly worded diplomatic note.
This is deliberate - NATO was conceived as the reverse of the old style alliances which locked countries into confrontation.
And yet, why are the Scandinavian and quasi-Scandindavian nations of Sweden and Finland wanting to join ? Absolute deterrence, which is rather different from this.
The voluntary aspect is the core strength of NATO. Because nothing is enforced, countries are *more* inclined to step up that try and work their way out of obligations
But what counts is collective pressure and context. Finland and Sweden have joined against a particular backdrop and historical context, expecting a particular level of help.
If Ukraine as a member state were attacked by Russia, they'd hardly be happy with a sternly worded note. In fact the the credibility of the entire alliance would be at stake if there wasn't a similarly forceful reaction, and then bye-bye planet.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
Nah that is genuinely rubbish. It would be like me describing Starmer or Kinnock as Communists simply because they were to the left of Blair. You lack perspective. And again I say that as someone who detested May's authoritarianism, Johnson's lazy, irresponsible dishonesty and Truss's ineptitude and arrogance. But none of them were 'far right' by either British or European standards.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
By that token you'd have to call Brown and Blair far right, or have you forgotten about policies like making migrants do volunteer work to prove they are committed to "protecting and enhancing the British way of life"?
To be fair to Blair and Brown , they were discovering the Tebbit Test Plus.
It’s not which side they cheer for at the cricket match. It who they cheer for when a bus gets bombed.
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less.
This is not how the economy works!
Paying teachers more will require tax rises or cuts elsewhere, that will other people poorer. That is the immediate effect.
Now you may say the case for teachers or some other public sector employees being paid more is worth the (most likely) tax rise or (less likely) cuts elsewhere. The teaching unions have to lay out a business plan for it just as I do when I make the case for members of my team getting pay rises. What additional responsibilities will they be taking on, what productivity gains can we expect from them and what will the end result be from the pay rises.
For nurses, the actual numbers are pretty easy to see, pay them a bit more, increase retention rates, increase training places due to better and more reliable staffing and ease the short term healthcare crunch and get the million "sick" back into work. That the government is unable to see this means they are still beholden to treasury groupthink. For teachers the case is much, much less clear cut. Teacher salaries in the UK are comparable to similar countries across Europe and there's not exactly a huge international market for teachers as there is for healthcare workers. There's also huge quality issues surrounding teaching and education in general, the sector seems to have decided bells and whistles like interactive whiteboards and touch screen tablets will make up for not actually teaching the kids very much, that may or may not be the fault of the DoE but that's where we're at.
But come on Max, you are the one who has been saying - with some justification - that we should be taxing the elderly more (or paying them less) to try and equalise the generational differences and to support working people more. This seems to me to be a damn good example of that.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss.
I suspected that was who you meant. Unfortunately for your argument, none of those are remotely "far right" by the accepted definition. Let's look at Wikipedia, which institutionally is no friend of the centre-right:
Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
But that is always the way. Just as the vision that many (most?) Remainers had of the UKs position within the EU was always impossible. But you argue and campaign for what you see as the ideal and then settle for something less but still better than the alternative. Those who deal in absolutes on any side are, quite frankly, fools.
Thats why I favour PR. It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
PR would also give RefUK at least 50 MPs now and Corbynites 50 to 100 MPs too.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
...and the UK has had at least three without PR, Your point is?
"at least three far right PMs"? Go on: name them.
May, Johnson, Truss. All from the right of the already fairly right wing Conservatives.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
What ludicrous rubbish. May for starters wasn't even on the right of the Conservative Party, Leadsom was the rightwing candidate in 2016 for the Conservative leadership not her.
Truss was a libertarian not far right, Johnson One Nation on most issues bar Brexit.
The main rightwing party in France is now far right Le Pen's not Les Republicains. The main far right party in Italy is now the far right Lega Nord of PM Meloni not Forza Italy.
The main centre right party in Spain, the Popular Party is ideologically not much different to the Conservatives except on Brexit. Even the CDU in Germany is more rightwing under Merz than it was under Merkel. In Sweden the centre right Moderate led government relies on the far right Sweden Democrats to stay in power.
In Poland the government is led by the Nationalist right Law and Justice too
Comments
You're losing your touch.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1620368920568815616
To me that's quite comical, in its way quite like the Boris editorial - provocative statements from a once-upon-a-time leader.
I'd say he's neglecting quite a lot of history, such as Merkel in Germany pushing Nordstream through right in the teeth of EU opposition, which extended to legal action from the European Commission iirc. I think that demonstrated that Brussels did not have rights to prevent it.
Plus the way the establishment, with their centralised vision, has Balkanised EU countries between East, West and South.
If there is to be more unity, I don't think (fortunately) that it will follow the old Verhofstadt vision.
All of the Brexiteers whining about how bad THIS Brexit is are still not reconciled to the fact that ALL Brexit are shit, even to those who support parts of it in principle, as they have incompatible aims.
Not to say you can't be a romantic who goes into politics, but you have to a big grasp of detail, at the same time, to carry that off. There were a couple of people like that in years gone by, and there are still a handful vaguely resembling it.
One of the interesting things about current strikes is perhaps how few of the striking Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Does this give Starmer manoeuvring room?
To me that says stuff about possible politicisation of non-political Unions, and opens up interesting politics in that arena.
Unions not affiliated driving strikes include the RCN, the NEU, the BMA, RMT, and the ASCL (School and College Leaders), and others. That is a mixture of non-party political and left-of-Labour (eg RMT affiliate to TUSC).
These are Unions affiliated to Labour - all eleven of them:
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers
Community - A union for workers in all industries and sectors
CWU - Communication Workers Union – post and telecommunications
FBU - Fire Brigades Union – firefighters and other workers within fire and rescue services
GMB - For general workers in public and private sectors
MU - Musicians Union – performers, writers and teachers in the music industry
TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association – railways, London Underground, travel, haulage, shipping
UNISON - The public service union for all those providing services to the public whether employed in the public, private or voluntary sectors
Unite - For general workers in the public and private sectors
USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers – retail, distributive and related industries
@JLPartnersPolls asked a 2,000 sample poll of U… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620362125381357573
I have been to two pubs on that list, 5, and weirdly, 6, where I had the best pub-cooked roast dinner I've ever had.
On free drinks, this almost certainly doesn't count as one of the best pubs in the country, but I once turned up with some friends at a Wetherspoons in search of a cheap and beery lunch. There was a bouncer on the door with a slightly pained expression. "The thing is," he said "we haven't actually opened this branch yet." We looked inside quizzically to where people appeared to be eating and drinking. "Well, it's sort of open, but just for training." Another puzzled look. "So I suppose you can come in, but we can't charge you. We can only give you things for free. [Pause] Is that ok?"
What might have been a perfectly adequate lunch was thus transformed into a legendary one.
Sadly we had somewhere to be by three so our opportunity to turn a free beery lunch into a free beery all-day drinking session had to be passed up.
Hmmm. Does it also partly undermine Sunak's possible allegations of strikes as being people vs Labour?
Can Starmer portray that as Govt vs Professionals?
My dad quit the Boilermakers when they merged with the General & Municipal. He didn't want to be in a union for unskilled labourers, whose priority would be shrinking pay differentials to his detriment.
It would give pragmatists like you and me more influence (compared to the current close to nil).
Selfish, perhaps, but I think it would also benefit the country.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1620383896721309698
IMF predicts UK only major economy to shrink this year. Inevitably lots of attention. But hard to see what's driving forecast, nor why deteriorated since Autumn.
This will be a tough year, with falling living standards and stagnant economy. But not sure we learnt much new today
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1620380504418848770
That is a failure to understand that the system itself, if it is superior, will be resilient enough regardless of who is at the tiller.
I think a much more relevant consideration for Putin was France and Germany's spineless response to Russia's 2014 invasion, driven by French appeasement and German greed.
But for some reason Verhofstadt doesn't mention those?
I think the IMF are going to be rewriting history around August of this year and big up their "the UK is on the right track" comment and suggest that actually, it really was more of that than they realised or something along those lines.
In the entire list of 22, in England there is nothing north of the M4 or South of the Humber, except for one in Stratford on Avon and one in Manchester.
Homework required, Timeout.
...Eddie Truell, a City veteran and strong Brexit supporter who set up the private equity firm Duke Street Capital and is co-founder of the Pension Insurance Corporation, expressed disappointment at the speed of deregulation in the UK’s financial services sector.
“I hoped we would see faster deregulation than has been the case,” he said, also speaking on Today. “We saw an enormous positive explosion in the City after big bang in the 1980s: I was hoping we would see the same thing.”...
I'd be interested in @Cyclefree 's reaction to that (fairly risible) comparison.
Seriously? And the Bull and Last (who they?) in North London but no The Flask or Holly Bush or Eagle or...
I mean really.
One thing you can be sure of is that had the 2016 referendum gone the other way but all else remained the same - Covid, Ukraine etc. - we would now be having exactly the same discussions but from the other direction.
And Scott 'n' paste would have been mercifully silent for months.
Around a third of the change in opinion against Brexit is demographic.
Nearly 100 days after she left Downing Street as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister in history, Liz Truss is reportedly planning a political comeback.
The ex-premier made a visit to Washington DC before Christmas to attend a gathering of centre-Right figures from across the globe.
It has now emerged, following a series of private meetings while she was across the Atlantic, that the 47-year-old told US politicians she 'remained determined to rouse Britain from economic stagnation'.
Italy even has a far right PM now with PR
https://guernseypress.com/news/2023/01/31/open-market-1-tax-idea-branded-hugely-damaging/
What Is COVID Actually Doing to Our Immune Systems?
https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/immunity-covid-research-airborne-aids-debunk.html
She may even stand down as an MP at the next general election
Timeout is a London publication and you get the sense that this is very much where the compilers happen to have been to outside London. I could also compile such a list and mine would be almost the reverse geographically.
Ex-Ireland: -0.02%
You will also note that I have always been an admirer of SKS, even though I don't particularly want a Labour government.
Right, that's me done, no need to post for while!
I'd just add that the distortions in #Ireland's #GDP data make it all the more important to compare UK growth with individual EU economies (Germany, France etc), rather than the EU (or eurozone) aggregates 🤓
Quote Tweet
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈
@JosephPolitano
·
Jan 29
Irish GDP data is increasingly driven by the island's status as a global tax haven, especially for tech companies.
Since the 2008 recession, GDP has doubled while household consumption has barely increased.
She's fresh, a highly networked self-starter full of beans, an expert in delivery and disaster zone management, and I commend this speech to other honourable members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beutepanzer
It always slightly surprises me that the Tories claim to be a free market party, when they prefer to keep an electoral system that is anything but free. If the punters vote for a point of view I may disagree with, I do not have the right to suppress those votes. I must campaign openly to change their minds. The problem is that "safe seats" are just so tempting and the result is an out of touch and complacent political class.
If you believe in free markets, then you must accept them in political choice too. Competition should see off the least valuable ideas in pretty quick order. The good news is that the Conservatives very bad ideas and abysmal leadership can now be defeated even in an electoral system that is somewhat biased in their favour.
After that we can talk about how we improve a system that let these no-hopers stay in charge for so long. PR is just the tip of a programme of necessary reform of how we govern ourselves. King Charles III clearly understands a storm is coming, and indeed no institution can remain unquestioned -from schools, the NHS, local government, and indeed political parties, Parliament and the Monarchy itself- after the past catastrophic years of wretched political incompetence, economic ignorance and growing corruption in our governing institutions.
Now that would be a Brexit dividend worth having. Albeit not quite in the way that its proponents hoped for.
A radical wind may bring the reform that it is now clear that our country needs.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, normally I'm very against strikes on principle but quite frankly when the Government are choosing to give double-digit inflationary pay increases to those who are not working for a living but are expecting those who go out to work to get real terms pay cuts, then I find it hard to object to people striking if that's their choice.
If the Triple Lock etc were being restrained by the same amount as the Government is expecting pay to be, then that would be one thing, but its not appropriate for those who are working for a living to be getting less than those who are not. That is about unConservative as I understood it as it can get.
This is deliberate - NATO was conceived as the reverse of the old style alliances which locked countries into confrontation.
Now you may say the case for teachers or some other public sector employees being paid more is worth the (most likely) tax rise or (less likely) cuts elsewhere. The teaching unions have to lay out a business plan for it just as I do when I make the case for members of my team getting pay rises. What additional responsibilities will they be taking on, what productivity gains can we expect from them and what will the end result be from the pay rises.
For nurses, the actual numbers are pretty easy to see, pay them a bit more, increase retention rates, increase training places due to better and more reliable staffing and ease the short term healthcare crunch and get the million "sick" back into work. That the government is unable to see this means they are still beholden to treasury groupthink. For teachers the case is much, much less clear cut. Teacher salaries in the UK are comparable to similar countries across Europe and there's not exactly a huge international market for teachers as there is for healthcare workers. There's also huge quality issues surrounding teaching and education in general, the sector seems to have decided bells and whistles like interactive whiteboards and touch screen tablets will make up for not actually teaching the kids very much, that may or may not be the fault of the DoE but that's where we're at.
But don´t worry, we will delay sending aircraft in the same way as we delayed tanks.
"if you are citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere, you do not know what citizenship means"-- one of the most disgraceful speeches ever given by a serving Prime Minister.
The previous generation of Tories would have given it very short shrift.
You can hardly deny that the Tories are no longer "centre-right", indeed ever since they left the EPP they have been well to the right of any of the traditionally Conservative European right-wing parties.
Cameron was probably the last "Conservative" leader.
Trying to strike a non-partisan note - I don't think anybody would find it easy to run the UK at the moment.
But Sweden looks like it's a playground for the Russian security services at the moment with that idiotic Danish provocateur burning Korans willy nilly. We've all got problems.
https://4w.pub/a-message-to-those-recently-opining/
Truss was a libertarian not far right, Johnson One Nation on most issues bar Brexit.
The main rightwing party in France is now far right Le Pen's not Les Republicains. The main far right party in Italy is now the far right Lega Nord of PM Meloni not Forza Italy.
The main centre right party in Spain, the Popular Party is ideologically not much different to the Conservatives except on Brexit. Even the CDU in Germany is more rightwing under
Merz than it was under Merkel. In Sweden the centre right Moderate led government relies on the far right Sweden Democrats to stay in power.
In Poland the government is led by the Nationalist right Law and Justice too
If Ukraine as a member state were attacked by Russia, they'd hardly be happy with a sternly worded note. In fact the the credibility of the entire alliance would be at stake if there wasn't a similarly forceful reaction, and then bye-bye planet.
It’s not which side they cheer for at the cricket match. It who they cheer for when a bus gets bombed.
I feel she may have missed out one significant group feigning concern for prisoners.
https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/status/1620202579329261570
Also pretty good:
"Berlin Views Hitler Calmly
Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs"
Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.