This seems to be an unsubstantiated claim by Louise Mensch.
I really doubt it helps Leadsom at this stage for her supporters to make things up.
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
That's an intriguing comment. Ignoring the pathetic jibe, we come down to "those don't have the best interests of the Party at heart" and that is worthy of some comment.
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
I was really cross at those Tories that voted for Jez, they'd have been screaming blue murder if Labour supporters had interfered with a Tory leadership contest.
Indeed. It was a grossly uncivic act of unmitigated dishonour. Those that did do should hang their heads in shame.
One would think it would at least disqualify them from passing any judgment on subsequent Labour travails, but strangely, no..
(We would only get camps in Kent if we were stupid, if we put the same onus on sea carriers and tunnel operators as we do on airlines, that they have to take back to the port of origin at their own expense anyone rejected at UK Immigration, we wouldn't have a problem)
Even the people who fronted "£350m for the NHS" have admitted it isn't accurate, because of course they can't answer the question "Well, when do we get it then?"
Still banging on about the £350m Scott?
Most of the public understand the difference between a campaign group and the government, despite years on this site it seems to have escaped Scott and one or two others. Not that we believe that, they just dont have any other drum bang at the moment, what with having lost and all
This will be doubly the case with a remain supporter as PM, and the likelihood that neither of the key politicians involved in the Leave campaign are in office, and certainly not relevant office. The likelihood of more than 1% of the public giving a crap by the next election is basically zero.
I suspect we'll still be hearing about the £350m claim from bitter Remainers in 20 years...
Well, from Scott and a couple of others that live in their mother's basement on here anyway, most people have lives to live and will have moved on to more fertile lines of argument well before the next election. The idea more than a handful of voters will care by 2020 is laughable.
In my mind the £350m figure was debunked by the BBC amongst others within 24 hours of it being mentioned. If the remain campaigners didnt get that message over to the voters then that is their failure.i got the message. Still voted leave.
No. I don't accept "We send £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS instead" as being anything other than deliberately misleading and mendacious. It is amusing watching the arguments defending it ("It depends what the meaning of "is" is")
Would you care to compare it in terms of levels of misleadingness and mendaciousness to say refugee camps in Kent, or causing conflict in Europe, or better still causing the end of western civilisation. If you think the £350m was a bit dodgy, perhaps you would like to contrast it with the £4300 from Remain, and particularly on the use of the otherwise unknown statistic GDP per household, taking special care to use 2030 GDP projections and 2015 household numbers and discounting the possibility that having left the EU we might do a trade deal with anyone else (hint: Australia, NZ, Canada and several other countries are asking for a trade deal and we haven't even left yet).
What about, what about, what about...
The Leave campaign won, so it's their claims under the spotlight and being pressed. Had Remain won, I'd have been equally snarky on them. Elsewhere, I already was snarking about both teams claims quite vociferously (especially the "Peace depends on it" claim, asking if we'd see Angela Merkel in a Panzer crossing the Rhine by the end of 2016 or not until 2017)
I started off as a soft-Leaver and spent most of the campaign wishing there was some way both sides could lose. The £350 million claim particularly annoyed me because it made a mockery of my own angry attack on a pro-EU advert that was going around early on ("The EU spends xxxx in your region..." resulting in me shouting "But that's OUR money being spent here", we could just as easily spend it here ourselves, you're being misleading at implying that this region would be automatically worse off") - but the claim screwed that up and legitimised it.
The claim that we could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS by not sending it to the EU was not true and deliberately misleading, using lawyer-speak to justify it ("If we take the gross rather than the net figure after thhe rebate, the figure is correct, assuming we ignore the spending that it's currently used on here. If we ignore the second sentence which deliberately implies that it's a net figure we could reallocate and ignore the fact that there'd be a lot of losers because we'd be effectively redirecting existing spend and still fall short by the level of the rebate anyway"). Seriously.
I know quite a few Tory members who won't vote for May as being too close to project Cameron. Its not about a safe pair of hands - how is continuity Cameron "safe" when you didn't like his project in the first place?
I've described May as resembling a pop-eyed loon and I stand by that. For her to look sane vs Andrea "something of Michael Howard" Leadsom tells you all you need to know about Tory politics.
From my perspective the contest feels win win. Elect May and you have someone disliked by a sizeable chunk of the party who will struggle to shake off Camerosborne. Elect Leadsom and its lets scrap modernity and feminism and gay rights and put women back in their box. The big threat to Labour was Boris, someone who despite the reputation could pull in people from across the party divide. Instead he's gone and the choice is bonkers or more bonkers. Marvellous.
Even the people who fronted "£350m for the NHS" have admitted it isn't accurate, because of course they can't answer the question "Well, when do we get it then?"
Still banging on about the £350m Scott?
Most of the public understand the difference between a campaign group and the government, despite years on this site it seems to have escaped Scott and one or two others. Not that we believe that, they just dont have any other drum bang at the moment, what with having lost and all
This will be doubly the case with a remain supporter as PM, and the likelihood that neither of the key politicians involved in the Leave campaign are in office, and certainly not relevant office. The likelihood of more than 1% of the public giving a crap by the next election is basically zero.
I suspect we'll still be hearing about the £350m claim from bitter Remainers in 20 years...
Well, from Scott and a couple of others that live in their mother's basement on here anyway, most people have lives to live and will have moved on to more fertile lines of argument well before the next election. The idea more than a handful of voters will care by 2020 is laughable.
In my mind the £350m figure was debunked by the BBC amongst others within 24 hours of it being mentioned. If the remain campaigners didnt get that message over to the voters then that is their failure.i got the message. Still voted leave.
Its their own stupid fault, they spend weeks crying about the figure and so embedded it in the public consciousness, if they had just ignored it and moved on it would have had no impact and been forgotten about, it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
Call me old fashioned but I'd say it's a bit rude - a quick phone call or note would have been politer - at least it's done so we can get onto weightier matters.
Whoever is running Leadsom's media campaign deserves a medal from Team May. Texting an apology is yet another misstep. An impersonal response to a very personal situation. Leadsom should have spoken directly by phone to May or met her in private.
Her vanity at declaring herself a candidate because Boris didn't do something according to her own silly deadline is incredible.
That then triggered Gove....who had to take Johnson down to stand.....I'm not sure if this is the 'tragedy' or 'farce' version of history......
Yes. I think this was the real reason Gove stood. Boris failed to square Andrea so Andrea decided to stand. Gove thought he was better than both of them and couldn't stomach the idea of Andrea winning so he decided to mortally wound Boris and stand himself.
I don't think that makes sense. Between Andrea and Boris the Brexit candidate would of course have been Boris.
I still don't think any of us really know's what happened between Gove and Boris and maybe we never will...
I think Gove had come to the conclusion that Boris was unable to present a coherent or consistent Brexit argument and that he would therefore lose to a true Brexiteer.
Still don't know why Boris felt he had to pull out.
He never expected to be the Tory PM who actually had to deliver on Leave. Remember his face on June 24th. He was looking for a way out since he knew if he became PM and had to deal with all the fall out of Leave, his reputation would be shot. As it is he gets to carry on with only a slight blemish.
Call me old fashioned but I'd say it's a bit rude - a quick phone call or note would have been politer - at least it's done so we can get onto weightier matters.
Whoever is running Leadsom's media campaign deserves a medal from Team May. Texting an apology is yet another misstep. An impersonal response to a very personal situation. Leadsom should have spoken directly by phone to May or met her in private.
Her vanity at declaring herself a candidate because Boris didn't do something according to her own silly deadline is incredible.
That then triggered Gove....who had to take Johnson down to stand.....I'm not sure if this is the 'tragedy' or 'farce' version of history......
Yes. I think this was the real reason Gove stood. Boris failed to square Andrea so Andrea decided to stand. Gove thought he was better than both of them and couldn't stomach the idea of Andrea winning so he decided to mortally wound Boris and stand himself.
I don't think that makes sense. Between Andrea and Boris the Brexit candidate would of course have been Boris.
I still don't think any of us really know's what happened between Gove and Boris and maybe we never will...
I think Gove had come to the conclusion that Boris was unable to present a coherent or consistent Brexit argument and that he would therefore lose to a true Brexiteer.
It is surprising, even knowing how politics works, that Gove was in such a powerful position that he could command Boris not to stand, and Boris submitted. Gove clearly has a high opinion of himself, wanted to be leader, and believed he couldn't win if Boris was a candidate, but I'm not convinced that Gove had any confidence in his own chances of winning the leadership contest. So it seems more a case that Gove felt embarrassed at the thought of Boris being PM and told him in no uncertain terms that he wasn't up to the job. I think Gove would've pointed out to Boris, probably correctly, that it was unlikely he would win the leadership contest having become such a divisive and lampooned figure, so it'd be the honourable thing to bow out a the top. But the event does portray Boris as a very weak character, that he could be persuaded out of his political ambitions by one man, more or less.
A somewhat secondary issue/fact is that Boris was used by Gove and co as a useful tool in the Brexit campaign, and then discarded when he'd served his useful purpose. A pathetic end to a successful, if much maligned, political career.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
That's an intriguing comment. Ignoring the pathetic jibe, we come down to "those don't have the best interests of the Party at heart" and that is worthy of some comment.
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
I was really cross at those Tories that voted for Jez, they'd have been screaming blue murder if Labour supporters had interfered with a Tory leadership contest.
Indeed. It was a grossly uncivic act of unmitigated dishonour. Those that did do should hang their heads in shame.
One would think it would at least disqualify them from passing any judgment on subsequent Labour travails, but strangely, no..
It's worse even than that.
We had to witness the sickening spectacle of a rightwing Tory supporter saying she "felt sorry for the Labour Party" yesterday, despite voting for Corbyn as in an unwashed ploy to game the system for narrow party political advantage.
Credit to the many posters on here of all sides (such as @TSE and @MaxPB) who have denounced that behaviour as what it is: a deeply uncivic act.
Even the people who fronted "£350m for the NHS" have admitted it isn't accurate, because of course they can't answer the question "Well, when do we get it then?"
Still banging on about the £350m Scott?
Most of the public understand the difference between a campaign group and the government, despite years on this site it seems to have escaped Scott and one or two others. Not that we believe that, they just dont have any other drum bang at the moment, what with having lost and all
This will be doubly the case with a remain supporter as PM, and the likelihood that neither of the key politicians involved in the Leave campaign are in office, and certainly not relevant office. The likelihood of more than 1% of the public giving a crap by the next election is basically zero.
I suspect we'll still be hearing about the £350m claim from bitter Remainers in 20 years...
Well, from Scott and a couple of others that live in their mother's basement on here anyway, most people have lives to live and will have moved on to more fertile lines of argument well before the next election. The idea more than a handful of voters will care by 2020 is laughable.
In my mind the £350m figure was debunked by the BBC amongst others within 24 hours of it being mentioned. If the remain campaigners didnt get that message over to the voters then that is their failure.i got the message. Still voted leave.
Its their own stupid fault, they spend weeks crying about the figure and so embedded it in the public consciousness, if they had just ignored it and moved on it would have had no impact and been forgotten about, it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
That’s the trouble with getting older; short-term memory goes!
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
I know quite a few Tory members who won't vote for May as being too close to project Cameron. Its not about a safe pair of hands - how is continuity Cameron "safe" when you didn't like his project in the first place?
I've described May as resembling a pop-eyed loon and I stand by that. For her to look sane vs Andrea "something of Michael Howard" Leadsom tells you all you need to know about Tory politics.
From my perspective the contest feels win win. Elect May and you have someone disliked by a sizeable chunk of the party who will struggle to shake off Camerosborne. Elect Leadsom and its lets scrap modernity and feminism and gay rights and put women back in their box. The big threat to Labour was Boris, someone who despite the reputation could pull in people from across the party divide. Instead he's gone and the choice is bonkers or more bonkers. Marvellous.
I know quite a few who also wouldn't vote Leadsom as she's seen as being too close to Project Farage.
But the week before everyone assume it was going to be a remain vote ?
(Also that is a re posting by them of an article they did a few days ago)
Didn't Breaking Point come out the week before the referendum?
Indeed, leaving the EU is not an inherently xenophobic act, however the Leave campaign stirred up hatred and resentment at every opportunity for weeks before the vote. Its not surprising therefore that hate crime increased as well.
I know quite a few Tory members who won't vote for May as being too close to project Cameron. Its not about a safe pair of hands - how is continuity Cameron "safe" when you didn't like his project in the first place?
I've described May as resembling a pop-eyed loon and I stand by that. For her to look sane vs Andrea "something of Michael Howard" Leadsom tells you all you need to know about Tory politics.
From my perspective the contest feels win win. Elect May and you have someone disliked by a sizeable chunk of the party who will struggle to shake off Camerosborne. Elect Leadsom and its lets scrap modernity and feminism and gay rights and put women back in their box. The big threat to Labour was Boris, someone who despite the reputation could pull in people from across the party divide. Instead he's gone and the choice is bonkers or more bonkers. Marvellous.
Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
It should be May, she has the experience and the steady hand that is needed in what is going to be a rough for years for this country. Being a remainer or a shy remainer doesn't matter, Brexit is happening and there is no way she could go against the people who have decided out is out. Besides by the sounds of it and I do expect this she will bring together a team of remainers and leavers to start the brexit process and decide what is best for the country going forward, I think the rumors of Davis Davis being part of the team is a very good idea.
Also May has the backing of her colleagues. IMO it will end in tears if the candidate with just 25% of PCP backing her gets the job. There are going to be some very rough seas ahead in the coming years which is going to require stable government I don't see how Leadsom can bring that with her lack of support.
The claim that we could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS by not sending it to the EU was not true and deliberately misleading, using lawyer-speak to justify it ("If we take the gross rather than the net figure after thhe rebate, the figure is correct, assuming we ignore the spending that it's currently used on here. If we ignore the second sentence which deliberately implies that it's a net figure we could reallocate and ignore the fact that there'd be a lot of losers because we'd be effectively redirecting existing spend and still fall short by the level of the rebate anyway"). Seriously.
I am not trying to hold up either side as paragons of truth and I am just getting a bit testy with people that try to. Both sides lied their asses off.
It doesn't get away from the fact that the lying was from a political campaign group not the government, it was run by Cummings who isn't an elected politician and Matthew Elliott who isn't one either , furthermore its likely that even the politicians involved in that campaign are not going to be in a position to do anything about the claim should they be inclined. Political campaigns lie shocker.
Lets just imagine for a moment that Leave.EU was the official campaign group and that the last month was full of press releases from Farage and Arron Banks, would you be saying that the government was bound by the promises they made as well ?
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
This seems to be an unsubstantiated claim by Louise Mensch.
I really doubt it helps Leadsom at this stage for her supporters to make things up.
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
It's been clear from the outset that Sylvester grilled/pushed Leadsom on this matter, and that she did say words to the effect that "motherhood has no bearing on Tory leadership contest" but that she did allow herself to be pushed into saying all those things for which she's been rightly criticised.
Not sure what's difficult to understand: Leadsom is a prat but she's a prat who doesn't want her prattishness to be a campaign issue.
I see Mrs May has proposed a worker in every boardroom or some such...
I do hope the Conservative leadership campaign moves on to areas of policy rather than this 'children' mush.
It's very Teutonic (they have a separate supervisory board with a big chunk of worker representatives, though they often mutate into company yes-men) and I mildly approve. The Angela Merkel parallel grows by the day.
I'm sure David's right and May will win in a canter. The only thing to be careful of as a punter (or indeed as May) is that the press like to make a close race out of anything. If May says anything even mildly controversial, it will be hyped up as an appalling blunder and the odds will shift for a while, before we see that the public hasn't actually noticed.
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
The point of drawing attention to broken Vote Leave pledges now is to be able to captialise politically if things should go less than swimmingly over the next few years. Of course, if they do, in fact, go swimmingly, then none of these messages will be effective.
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
Nope.
I for one voted out taking the view that it would be better for the UK long-term, and bearing in mind that Mr Cameron had turned his coat and gone "henny-penny" in a remarkably short time frame.
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I view Leadsom/ContinuityIDS as a virus that needs to be repelled. The future of the country is at stake. By any necessary means to defeat her is acceptable.
Pfft. A few months ago people who didn't like Dave were "terminally stupid", then it moved on to people who wanted to Leave were "terminally stupid", and now anyone who doesn't think Mrs May is the second coming is "terminally stupid" with such intellectual self-confidence (not to mention suppleness) you should stand for office
I'm enjoying this 'Grayling could be Home Sec' conversion by those who relentlessly rubbished him for years as dangerous/stupid/useless - right up to the day he backed May.
Until recently, the consensus here was that Grayling could hardly tie his own shoelaces.
It is quite remarkable Plato and SeanF. Just as Theresa May has become Saint Theresa to the Guardianista/BBC/lefties/europhiles etc.
A serious question for those of you who drink a fair bit, or used to: if you have a hangover, can the impact by mitigated by drinking more?
Yes, sadly. That's one reason why alcohol is such a dangerous, insidious drug. The most dangerous there is.
Two mcdonalds large size mcchicken sandwich meals with diet coke was my preferred remedy. (Not available til 10:30 - WTF is that all about. You've got it in the freezer, let me have it).
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
The SNP got a "remain"vote out by putting forward a positive case, unfortunately in England and Wales Plaid are useless and the Lib Dems were rather less heard than Con/Lab remain.
Even the people who fronted "£350m for the NHS" have admitted it isn't accurate, because of course they can't answer the question "Well, when do we get it then?"
Still banging on about the £350m Scott?
Most of the public understand the difference between a campaign group and the government, despite years on this site it seems to have escaped Scott and one or two others. Not that we believe that, they just dont have any other drum bang at the moment, what with having lost and all
This will be doubly the case with a remain supporter as PM, and the likelihood that neither of the key politicians involved in the Leave campaign are in office, and certainly not relevant office. The likelihood of more than 1% of the public giving a crap by the next election is basically zero.
I suspect we'll still be hearing about the £350m claim from bitter Remainers in 20 years...
Well, from Scott and a couple of others that live in their mother's basement on here anyway, most people have lives to live and will have moved on to more fertile lines of argument well before the next election. The idea more than a handful of voters will care by 2020 is laughable.
Is Pasty_Scott a teenage key board warrior? I thought he had a top job in a FTSE 100 and was just seconded to REMAIN?
What's the issue? The people voted on the situation as was true in 2014, and Davidson's comments were entirely accurate. The electorate has since changed that situation as was known to be a possibility at the time.
This seems to be an unsubstantiated claim by Louise Mensch.
I really doubt it helps Leadsom at this stage for her supporters to make things up.
Why not? Making things up worked for Leave!
and remain.
While WWII, for example, was fantastical and plain stupid, the camps in Kent look like a real possibility.
Explain then why there are not camps at Heathrow.
The answer of course is that as happens now with the airlines, the Ferrys and Eurotunnel will become the france side border guards because heavy fines on them for each unauthorised person arriving at Dover will make them do as the airlines do - not allow anyone without the correct paperwork on board.
Indeed I suspect they will probably do a better job of it than our border guards especially in checking trucks.
The biggest problem with the remain campaign was that in going so over the top with the warnings, the actual consequence of a negative economic impact got very lost within all the fluff.
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
Professionals, social liberals and London possibly should meditate on the reasons for that, and maybe do something about it, once the "disenfranchised" start to feel powerful they might get a taste for it.
A serious question for those of you who drink a fair bit, or used to: if you have a hangover, can the impact by mitigated by drinking more?
Yes, sadly. That's one reason why alcohol is such a dangerous, insidious drug. The most dangerous there is.
Two mcdonalds large size mcchicken sandwich meals with diet coke was my preferred remedy. (Not available til 10:30 - WTF is that all about. You've got it in the freezer, let me have it).
I've never found the hair of the dog working for me. The only times I've come even close is when I'm still inebriated so it's more topping up rather than hair of the dog!
The claim that we could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS by not sending it to the EU was not true and deliberately misleading, using lawyer-speak to justify it ("If we take the gross rather than the net figure after thhe rebate, the figure is correct, assuming we ignore the spending that it's currently used on here. If we ignore the second sentence which deliberately implies that it's a net figure we could reallocate and ignore the fact that there'd be a lot of losers because we'd be effectively redirecting existing spend and still fall short by the level of the rebate anyway"). Seriously.
I am not trying to hold up either side as paragons of truth and I am just getting a bit testy with people that try to. Both sides lied their asses off.
It doesn't get away from the fact that the lying was from a political campaign group not the government, it was run by Cummings who isn't an elected politician and Matthew Elliott who isn't one either , furthermore its likely that even the politicians involved in that campaign are not going to be in a position to do anything about the claim should they be inclined. Political campaigns lie shocker.
Lets just imagine for a moment that Leave.EU was the official campaign group and that the last month was full of press releases from Farage and Arron Banks, would you be saying that the government was bound by the promises they made as well ?
What's the issue? The people voted on the situation as was true in 2014, and Davidson's comments were entirely accurate. The electorate has since changed that situation as was known to be a possibility at the time.
There's no issue, Sturgeon put another ref into her manifesto for exactly this possibility. And the electorate in Scotland may change this situation, as was known to be a possibility at the time of the Scottish elections.
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
The Leadsom Times interview (with audio) has been a huge fail for her and I do not see that she will be able to recover from it.
Both Sky and BBC news have been covering the story extensively today, also 5 live and the Victoria Derbyshire programme. It does appear that she has outraged women in particular and even her spokespersons are admitting that she was naive and right to apologize.
Victoria Derbyshire interviewed a number of undecided voters across all parties as to who they wanted as the next pm between May, Leadsom, Corbyn, and Eagle and the consensus was that the Country needed stability and Theresa May. Even Norman Smith commented that he has detected a move to Theresa May generally.
It does seem inconceivable that the conservative party members will not put the Country first and elect Theresa May
A serious question for those of you who drink a fair bit, or used to: if you have a hangover, can the impact by mitigated by drinking more?
Yes, sadly. That's one reason why alcohol is such a dangerous, insidious drug. The most dangerous there is.
Two mcdonalds large size mcchicken sandwich meals with diet coke was my preferred remedy. (Not available til 10:30 - WTF is that all about. You've got it in the freezer, let me have it).
I swore by a banana and oodles of Diet Coke/water. I hated the karate chop ache on the back of my neck - that'd arrive about lunchtime and last all afternoon. And of course feeling spaced/stupid all day.
It seems to me that many people are failing to see the obvious here: Mrs Leadsom is not only absurdly inexperienced for the immediate job of PM at a particularly difficult time, she's also quite simply not very good at the key requirements of front-line politics. The more one sees of her, the less good she appears. It follows, therefore, that the hustings and interviews over the next few weeks are going to act to her disadvantage, not her advantage, with party members.
Mr. Eagles, presumably the ACC's comments can be corroborated, or not?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dave (et al), Morris Dancer is not an alcoholic. I've probably had one drink (of alcohol) in the last five years. Not a proper teetotaller, mind, I just don't drink much.
I was asking for research purposes for a character I'm writing.
It seems to me that many people are failing to see the obvious here: Mrs Leadsom is not only absurdly inexperienced for the immediate job of PM at a particularly difficult time, she's also quite simply not very good at the key requirements of front-line politics. The more one sees of her, the less good she appears. It follows, therefore, that the hustings and interviews over the next few weeks are going to act to her disadvantage, not her advantage, with party members.
Unless she renounces Brexit, nothing she does or says will have any impact on the vote
Still don't know why Boris felt he had to pull out.
He never expected to be the Tory PM who actually had to deliver on Leave. Remember his face on June 24th. He was looking for a way out since he knew if he became PM and had to deal with all the fall out of Leave, his reputation would be shot. As it is he gets to carry on with only a slight blemish.
Interesting article in the Financial Times on Saturday by Simon Kuper that has a ring of truth about it Brexit: a coup by one set of public schoolboys against another. Basically the campaign was run out between former Oxford Union debaters, mostly from Eton, who were carrying on from where they left off at Oxford. So "Should we Leave the EU" is treated just the same way as the motion "Sex is good . . . but success is better" (Teresa May apparently argued for the motion). Snippet:
The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large.
Having won the vote, Johnson went off to play cricket. They had no plans for executing the vote because that's boring and best left to civil servants. And pledges on immigration were airily retracted because these public schoolboy debaters don't actually care about immigration
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
Some points. I pretty much ignored both campaigns once it was clear that both sides were either pulling facts out of their arse, or arguing over non sequiturs.
On the finance side, the treasury's £4,300 per household figure was as stupid as the £350m/week. As I wrote last night, the rise in our debt servicing spend over the life of this parliament far exceeds our EU gross contribution. It's literally peanuts when compared to a £750 billion government spend.
Far more serious was the issue of Turkey. That was a disgusting move by Vote.Leave. However, it was able to get away with it, simply because its the official position of the EU, even though no one with half a brain cell believes Turkish accession is imminent.
Lastly, I'm not fan of May. However, politics keeps giving us these binary questions. It would be fairer to say that I'm an ABL cove for entirely quotidian reasons. Given that all other contenders have copied Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes, I'm left with May.
Not really the time for narrow party political advantage – the country is desperate for stability and to get us into the EEA quick sharp so the economy can stablise. Thanks to you and your brethren from the loon eurosceptic left wing of the Labour Party, who helped pull us out of Europe and put they futures of a generation under threat, most moderates will be popping the Champagne corks should May win. At least she is vaguely sensible.
Oh dear, its the "we know your lives better than you peons do" argument again. I'm not going to recant the referendum again but people voted to leave because they saw the status quo as not working for them. Thats not comfortable for people who are the status quo hence calling voters Racist and Stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
More post truth politics.
It was on the bus day 1. Boris "carved it into steel" day 1
It was the main thrust of the campaign, from start to finish. And it was, and remains, a lie.
An exxageration perhaps but not a lie.
£350 million is the gross amount. There is nothing preventing the UK government declining to replace EU grants with UK grants and giving all the money to the NHS instead.
They probably wont but - unlike the threatened punishment budget - it is not a lie. If they did cancel their grants and give it to the NHS the wailing from those with their noses in the EU trough would be a sight to behold though. Actually it is just the sort of stunt Osborne would pull to wrongfoot Labour
It does seem inconceivable that the conservative party members will not put the Country first and elect Theresa May
Mr G I must say your views of politics do seem a little lacking in shades of grey, you were nailed on for Remain, then in the light of the result you are nailed on for leave, you were a utterly committed follower are Dave until he resigned and now are to believe that Saint Theresa will be the second coming. I hope May wins as well, but only in the context of her being the least bad candidate of a pretty unpreposessing selection.
Mr. Eagles, presumably the ACC's comments can be corroborated, or not?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dave (et al), Morris Dancer is not an alcoholic. I've probably had one drink (of alcohol) in the last five years. Not a proper teetotaller, mind, I just don't drink much.
I was asking for research purposes for a character I'm writing.
My brother's a tee-totaller. His Methodist wife converted him. He didn't like the taste of alcohol, but happily downed Smirnoff with coke for years.
Re your various fantasy adventures - have you ever watched Ray Mears' survival TV shows on Travel Channel?
He's brimming with practical ways to do all sorts of things with twigs or cacti etc. And epic tales of past adventurers.
The claim that we could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS by not sending it to the EU was not true and deliberately misleading, using lawyer-speak to justify it ("If we take the gross rather than the net figure after thhe rebate, the figure is correct, assuming we ignore the spending that it's currently used on here. If we ignore the second sentence which deliberately implies that it's a net figure we could reallocate and ignore the fact that there'd be a lot of losers because we'd be effectively redirecting existing spend and still fall short by the level of the rebate anyway"). Seriously.
I am not trying to hold up either side as paragons of truth and I am just getting a bit testy with people that try to. Both sides lied their asses off.
It doesn't get away from the fact that the lying was from a political campaign group not the government, it was run by Cummings who isn't an elected politician and Matthew Elliott who isn't one either , furthermore its likely that even the politicians involved in that campaign are not going to be in a position to do anything about the claim should they be inclined. Political campaigns lie shocker.
Lets just imagine for a moment that Leave.EU was the official campaign group and that the last month was full of press releases from Farage and Arron Banks, would you be saying that the government was bound by the promises they made as well ?
I'm not disagreeing with you, just challenging posters who are still claiming that it's true
The NHS is no longer affordable. Globalisation implies that people in the UK die of poverty. For some reason most Peebies seem to regard this prospect with glee...
This is 'reported incidents' rather than charges, prosecutions, or convictions. They also seem to be in Remain voting areas rather than Leave voting areas.
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
That's over a fortnight older he's update his views has he not ?
it was only when Remain started banging on about it the eyes started to light up in Cumming's office and it got plastered all over buses and posters)
More post truth politics.
It was on the bus day 1. Boris "carved it into steel" day 1
It was the main thrust of the campaign, from start to finish. And it was, and remains, a lie.
An exxageration perhaps but not a lie.
£350 million is the gross amount. There is nothing preventing the UK government declining to replace EU grants with UK grants and giving all the money to the NHS instead.
They probably wont but - unlike the threatened punishment budget - it is not a lie. If they did cancel their grants and give it to the NHS the wailing from those with their noses in the EU trough would be a sight to behold though. Actually it is just the sort of stunt Osborne would pull to wrongfoot Labour
It isn't the gross amount either and even Nigel Farage admitted, once the vote had closed, that the NHS won't see the extra money. It was a lie that worked. That's all there is to say about it
and yet for some strange reason The Times are refusing to release the full audio, just selected bit, I don't support Leadsom, but something smells about this story, especially with the sudden change of story from the journalist concerned yesterday which showed at the very least there had been leading questions and it was not an off the cuff reply.
That post by Guido Fawkes is sheer nonsense from start to finish, as anyone who has read the fuller transcript on ConHome will see in an instant. There was no "contradiction" and no "correction" from Rachel Sylvester, just four seconds edited out of an interview with her to try to mislead people into thinking that she, rather than Leadsom, was the first to raise the issue of her family and children.
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
Possibly The Times should stop pissing around and release the full audio then, rather than allow another conspiracy to develop, it hard to understand their motive for keeping it under wraps.
It is all too late. I do not understand why Leadsom supporters are continuing with the story which they have already lost in the public's eyes.
I heard Louise Mensch on the Stephen Nolan show last night and she was absolutely hysterical about the slur on Leadsom, over talking Stephen and the other contributors, indeed almost screaming down the line. What planet is she on if she thinks her behavior is helpful to Andrea Leadsom
No it is not. They are campaigners not the government. A campaign position of cancelling all EU grants after leaving and diverting our gross contributions to the NHS is entirely legitimate. Whether the government would actually do it is up to the government.
Mr. M, aye, that's a troubling but not necessarily unexpected response by some people. There was also a girl in the US hunting for a water-based Pokemon who found a corpse in a river.
Miss Plato, my religious studies teacher (a top chap) was a Methodist laypreacher. I think he viewed the rules on alcohol like Jack Sparrow viewed the rules on piracy.
I'e seen the odd smidgen of Ray Mears. Sir Edric's bloody rich and has a manservant, so the knight himself tends to supervise whilst Dog actually does everything.
Comments
Chortle ..
http://order-order.com/2016/07/09/rachel-sylvester-corrects-story/
Reported incidents increased by 42% in the week before and week after the UK’s vote to leave the EU on 23 June
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/11/police-blame-worst-rise-in-recorded-hate-on-eu-referendum?CMP=share_btn_tw
(Also that is a re posting by them of an article they did a few days ago)
(We would only get camps in Kent if we were stupid, if we put the same onus on sea carriers and tunnel operators as we do on airlines, that they have to take back to the port of origin at their own expense anyone rejected at UK Immigration, we wouldn't have a problem)
I can't find the relevant poll, but IIRC Remain had a lower Trust rating overall.
The Leave campaign won, so it's their claims under the spotlight and being pressed. Had Remain won, I'd have been equally snarky on them. Elsewhere, I already was snarking about both teams claims quite vociferously (especially the "Peace depends on it" claim, asking if we'd see Angela Merkel in a Panzer crossing the Rhine by the end of 2016 or not until 2017)
I started off as a soft-Leaver and spent most of the campaign wishing there was some way both sides could lose. The £350 million claim particularly annoyed me because it made a mockery of my own angry attack on a pro-EU advert that was going around early on ("The EU spends xxxx in your region..." resulting in me shouting "But that's OUR money being spent here", we could just as easily spend it here ourselves, you're being misleading at implying that this region would be automatically worse off") - but the claim screwed that up and legitimised it.
The claim that we could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS by not sending it to the EU was not true and deliberately misleading, using lawyer-speak to justify it ("If we take the gross rather than the net figure after thhe rebate, the figure is correct, assuming we ignore the spending that it's currently used on here. If we ignore the second sentence which deliberately implies that it's a net figure we could reallocate and ignore the fact that there'd be a lot of losers because we'd be effectively redirecting existing spend and still fall short by the level of the rebate anyway"). Seriously.
I've described May as resembling a pop-eyed loon and I stand by that. For her to look sane vs Andrea "something of Michael Howard" Leadsom tells you all you need to know about Tory politics.
From my perspective the contest feels win win. Elect May and you have someone disliked by a sizeable chunk of the party who will struggle to shake off Camerosborne. Elect Leadsom and its lets scrap modernity and feminism and gay rights and put women back in their box. The big threat to Labour was Boris, someone who despite the reputation could pull in people from across the party divide. Instead he's gone and the choice is bonkers or more bonkers. Marvellous.
A somewhat secondary issue/fact is that Boris was used by Gove and co as a useful tool in the Brexit campaign, and then discarded when he'd served his useful purpose. A pathetic end to a successful, if much maligned, political career.
We had to witness the sickening spectacle of a rightwing Tory supporter saying she "felt sorry for the Labour Party" yesterday, despite voting for Corbyn as in an unwashed ploy to game the system for narrow party political advantage.
Credit to the many posters on here of all sides (such as @TSE and @MaxPB) who have denounced that behaviour as what it is: a deeply uncivic act.
Experts
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/595112367358406656
The boy who cried wolf is so apt for the ref.
A serious question for those of you who drink a fair bit, or used to: if you have a hangover, can the impact by mitigated by drinking more?
Also May has the backing of her colleagues. IMO it will end in tears if the candidate with just 25% of PCP backing her gets the job. There are going to be some very rough seas ahead in the coming years which is going to require stable government I don't see how Leadsom can bring that with her lack of support.
It doesn't get away from the fact that the lying was from a political campaign group not the government, it was run by Cummings who isn't an elected politician and Matthew Elliott who isn't one either , furthermore its likely that even the politicians involved in that campaign are not going to be in a position to do anything about the claim should they be inclined. Political campaigns lie shocker.
Lets just imagine for a moment that Leave.EU was the official campaign group and that the last month was full of press releases from Farage and Arron Banks, would you be saying that the government was bound by the promises they made as well ?
Incidentally, 350m per week is 18bn per year which is only just over half of what the medical profession estimates is needed to just stand still on health provision by 2020. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-much-money-does-nhs-need
It was so marvellously stupid.
Their people wouldn't listen anyway. They just wanted to put two fingers up to professionals, social liberals, and London, and bugger the consequences.
Not sure what's difficult to understand: Leadsom is a prat but she's a prat who doesn't want her prattishness to be a campaign issue.
I'm sure David's right and May will win in a canter. The only thing to be careful of as a punter (or indeed as May) is that the press like to make a close race out of anything. If May says anything even mildly controversial, it will be hyped up as an appalling blunder and the odds will shift for a while, before we see that the public hasn't actually noticed.
https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/750972916062453760
And the Labour contest actually starting.
I for one voted out taking the view that it would be better for the UK long-term, and bearing in mind that Mr Cameron had turned his coat and gone "henny-penny" in a remarkably short time frame.
(I dont drink lots I am just cursed with getting a hangover really easily, couple of pints usually does it)
As I said, in the circumstances, the more lies Leadsom's apologists come out with, the worse it makes things look.
If anyone actually tracked my internet searches they'd probably think I were an alcoholic
Breitbart looked into some of the reports:
"Earlier this week Breitbart London revealed how social justice warriors and pro-EU activists are gathering on Facebook pages to encourage one another to report “hate crimes” they witness. Journalists are stalking said Facebook pages in order to find stories.
And the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has also skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politicians’ narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/30/revealed-rise-hate-crimes-includes-people-phoning-police-complain-nigel-farage-says-police-chief/
The answer of course is that as happens now with the airlines, the Ferrys and Eurotunnel will become the france side border guards because heavy fines on them for each unauthorised person arriving at Dover will make them do as the airlines do - not allow anyone without the correct paperwork on board.
Indeed I suspect they will probably do a better job of it than our border guards especially in checking trucks.
It set a standard I never repeated
It was on the bus day 1. Boris "carved it into steel" day 1
It was the main thrust of the campaign, from start to finish. And it was, and remains, a lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36762791
Not a mobile gamer, or a Pokemon enthusiast, but this is quite an interesting approach to this sort of thing.
Both Sky and BBC news have been covering the story extensively today, also 5 live and the Victoria Derbyshire programme. It does appear that she has outraged women in particular and even her spokespersons are admitting that she was naive and right to apologize.
Victoria Derbyshire interviewed a number of undecided voters across all parties as to who they wanted as the next pm between May, Leadsom, Corbyn, and Eagle and the consensus was that the Country needed stability and Theresa May. Even Norman Smith commented that he has detected a move to Theresa May generally.
It does seem inconceivable that the conservative party members will not put the Country first and elect Theresa May
Could never face a fry up or similar.
It seems to me that many people are failing to see the obvious here: Mrs Leadsom is not only absurdly inexperienced for the immediate job of PM at a particularly difficult time, she's also quite simply not very good at the key requirements of front-line politics. The more one sees of her, the less good she appears. It follows, therefore, that the hustings and interviews over the next few weeks are going to act to her disadvantage, not her advantage, with party members.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Dave (et al), Morris Dancer is not an alcoholic. I've probably had one drink (of alcohol) in the last five years. Not a proper teetotaller, mind, I just don't drink much.
I was asking for research purposes for a character I'm writing.
The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large.
Having won the vote, Johnson went off to play cricket. They had no plans for executing the vote because that's boring and best left to civil servants. And pledges on immigration were airily retracted because these public schoolboy debaters don't actually care about immigration
http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-is-unacceptable-in-any-circumstances-say-police
However, we are seeing an increase in reports of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events. In previous instances, crime levels returned to normal relatively quickly but we are monitoring the situation closely.
I see we're refighting EUref once more.
Some points. I pretty much ignored both campaigns once it was clear that both sides were either pulling facts out of their arse, or arguing over non sequiturs.
On the finance side, the treasury's £4,300 per household figure was as stupid as the £350m/week. As I wrote last night, the rise in our debt servicing spend over the life of this parliament far exceeds our EU gross contribution. It's literally peanuts when compared to a £750 billion government spend.
Far more serious was the issue of Turkey. That was a disgusting move by Vote.Leave. However, it was able to get away with it, simply because its the official position of the EU, even though no one with half a brain cell believes Turkish accession is imminent.
Lastly, I'm not fan of May. However, politics keeps giving us these binary questions. It would be fairer to say that I'm an ABL cove for entirely quotidian reasons. Given that all other contenders have copied Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes, I'm left with May.
Mr. 43, Boris playing cricket the day after was bloody stupid.
The party who accepts that people know their lives better than establishment politicians do AND actually start to pay attention to them is going to clean up in the election.
£350 million is the gross amount. There is nothing preventing the UK government declining to replace EU grants with UK grants and giving all the money to the NHS instead.
They probably wont but - unlike the threatened punishment budget - it is not a lie. If they did cancel their grants and give it to the NHS the wailing from those with their noses in the EU trough would be a sight to behold though. Actually it is just the sort of stunt Osborne would pull to wrongfoot Labour
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
Re your various fantasy adventures - have you ever watched Ray Mears' survival TV shows on Travel Channel?
He's brimming with practical ways to do all sorts of things with twigs or cacti etc. And epic tales of past adventurers.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/07/armed-muggers-use-pokemon-go-to-find-victims/
And are we listening to experts now ?
I heard Louise Mensch on the Stephen Nolan show last night and she was absolutely hysterical about the slur on Leadsom, over talking Stephen and the other contributors, indeed almost screaming down the line. What planet is she on if she thinks her behavior is helpful to Andrea Leadsom
Miss Plato, my religious studies teacher (a top chap) was a Methodist laypreacher. I think he viewed the rules on alcohol like Jack Sparrow viewed the rules on piracy.
I'e seen the odd smidgen of Ray Mears. Sir Edric's bloody rich and has a manservant, so the knight himself tends to supervise whilst Dog actually does everything.
[For those interested, it's up here to peruse/buy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK ]