This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
"Grab em by the pussy" is just the American for "Calm down dear"
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
I don't see how we can be exempted from the Border Income Tax Adjustment, which will screw HMG and British firms particularly hard, irrespective of any free trade deal.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
"Grab em by the pussy" is just the American for "Calm down dear"
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
Your comment 'Whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose' is just the reason all those women marched yesterday
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
Your comment 'Whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose' is just the reason all those women marched yesterday
Shame they didn't march before the election when it might have done some good! Much better to sit back and tell everyone on Twitter how disgraceful things are for an entire year while he marches toward the white house, and then after he has taken the oath of office - the obvious time to make a demonstration!
As a Tory you should be disturbed is she spends any of her 20 minutes with the President signaling her virtue on things that are not going to change, rather than pushing forward on issues that might help the country, like challenging the idiotic border tax proposals.
There's plenty of other college stadia further down the list as well and its amusing to see that the Dallas Independent School District has a bigger stadium than the English national football team.
It must come in useful for:
' Blondes vs. Brunettes powderpuff football games are played in cities across the United States. ... The increasing popularity of the game in the Dallas area resulted in moving the 2012 game to the Cotton Bowl where it could accommodate a larger crowd. '
Now I knew that college football was a big thing in the USA but I never realised their stadia dwarfed those of the NFL.
Back in 1997, there was a similar thesis here, something like only 4 of the 92 professional football clubs in England had their stadiums in Tory held seats.
I've said out before that British elections are won and lost in places which sound like lower division football clubs - the Conference reads almost like a list of marginal constituencies.
Edit: 10 Championship teams in 2015 based in Conservative constituencies if Bolton Wanderers play in Bolton West.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
I don't see how we can be exempted from the Border Income Tax Adjustment, which will screw HMG and British firms particularly hard, irrespective of any free trade deal.
I do not have your knowledge and am sure trade deals don't just happen but at least we have been invited to discuss it by Trump - better than Merkel being first in line
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
Your comment 'Whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose' is just the reason all those women marched yesterday
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
Without being sexist I'd always chose a man over a woman.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
I don't see how we can be exempted from the Border Income Tax Adjustment, which will screw HMG and British firms particularly hard, irrespective of any free trade deal.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
Seems some of the tone of the Press Secretary's remarks has passed over to here this morning.
The "dance" of the first meeting between the incoming President and the British Prime Minister is one of those little bits of tradition but the "relationship" is important. Harold Macmillan thought he would be the "wise old Uncle" to JFK in 1961.
I expect Nixon and Wilson found they had more things in common than they expected.
Moving forward, we had Thatcher and Reagan who were ideological soulmates so that was fine.
Major's first meeting with Clinton was, I believe, overshadowed by the Conservative Party's hamfisted interference in support of George HW Bush in the 1992 election. The new administration owed us no favours.
Blair and George W Bush met in early 2001 and there were many of the same "concerns" about the younger Bush as there are about Trump in terms of his knowledge of the wider world and the sense domestic rather than international concerns would take priority. Events eight months later would change all that.
Brown and Obama met at the height of the global financial crisis - when I was in Las Vegas in late 2008, the DJIA was trading around 7500.
Interesting to hear some on here waxing lyrical about some form of economic tie up between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain - we could just call it Oceania and we'll become Airstrip One, shall we ? So much for "Global Britain", it's a headlong retreat to the Anglosphere running back to hide behind Washington.
Whether we like it or not, outside the EU, Britain will need to improve and strengthen economic ties beyond the familiar and the friendly - that means Russia, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia and a raft of other developing countries whose economies will be the powerhouses of the 21st Century. Getting good trade deals with those countries is as important as a nice deal with New Zealand or Australia which aren't perhaps as "British" as some on here think or believe.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
Tough isn't it? Between finding one that doesn't act like a 'bitch in heat' but can still give a good 'bj whilst reading an autocue'. Does such a creature exist one wonders?
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
Without being sexist I'd always chose a man over a woman.
That is the very essence of sexism, and every other '-ism'. Try substituting 'white man'/'black man' or 'Christian/Muslim' as just two examples.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
You can march as far as you want, burn limos, chuck rocks through shop windows, wave your well thought out placards and scream on twitter until your lungs explode, but Trump is still President. He is barmier than I thought he would be, and the first day or so hasn't exactly filled me with hope, but the US system made him top dog, and we have to deal with him. May is right to go and see him. Every world leader will need to meet him.
Just to put that point a bit more strongly, if there's ever been a leader it's worth meeting personally, it's Trump.
Normally a president will already have well thought-out views, and will also have advice from experts. It's probably quite unusual to be able to substantially sway their opinion by talking to them personally.
As far as we can tell, Trump is breathtakingly ignorant, has no settled political philosophy, goes with his gut and doesn't listen to advice. It's a long-shot but May's best bet is to get over there as fast as she possibly can, get him in a room, say a bunch of flattering things and try to get him to sign an agreement there and then before anybody else can stop him.
Probably worth giving it a go.
Heads of terms;
1. The windfarm near Donald's golf course gets moved. 2. US tariffs lowered by 95% 3. UK tariffs lowered by 5% 4. At least one nice story about Donald on the BBC every day. 5. We'll send the queen out for one last visit to America. Otherwise you're getting Charles.
Correct - that is exactly what oppression looks like. But I am far from convinced that it is Donald Trump who makes her wear a black bag over her head. She might want to look closer to home.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
In more diplomatic terms yes
With a president with a renowned thin skin ? I suppose she might whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose... anything less diplomatic than that is likely to put us at the back of the queue again.
Your comment 'Whisper it quietly while she is in the ladies room powdering her nose' is just the reason all those women marched yesterday
Unfortunately most of them were more bigoted than Trump.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
From the 1950s until the 1990s the Tories tended to win women and Labour won men
By "oppression" I trust that includes the oppression imposed on women by Islamic governments around the world?
No?
Oh.
Will you be campaigning for Britain to stop selling weapons to Saudi and the other dictatorships in the Gulf?
I'd be happy for that to happen.
As for actively campaigning for it - I'll leave that to these campaigners who clearly already are prepared to spend their time campaigning for women's issues... they just need to open their eyes and direct their energies at the real oppressors of women - and it's not Western politicians.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
Sarah Woolaston good Sarah Palin not so much. Never heard of Charlotte Leslie but cant be the worst MP with that surname surely
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
As long as Tessy tells Don he's the sexiest, he'll take the rest. Big G might get jealous though.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
As long as Tessy tells Don he's the sexiest, he'll take the rest. Big G might get jealous though.
The kindest thing I can say about Corbyn talking to Sophy on Sky is that he just rambles on and puts you to sleep. He really has no chemistry and frankly is just boring
You can march as far as you want, burn limos, chuck rocks through shop windows, wave your well thought out placards and scream on twitter until your lungs explode, but Trump is still President. He is barmier than I thought he would be, and the first day or so hasn't exactly filled me with hope, but the US system made him top dog, and we have to deal with him. May is right to go and see him. Every world leader will need to meet him.
Just to put that point a bit more strongly, if there's ever been a leader it's worth meeting personally, it's Trump.
Normally a president will already have well thought-out views, and will also have advice from experts. It's probably quite unusual to be able to substantially sway their opinion by talking to them personally.
As far as we can tell, Trump is breathtakingly ignorant, has no settled political philosophy, goes with his gut and doesn't listen to advice. It's a long-shot but May's best bet is to get over there as fast as she possibly can, get him in a room, say a bunch of flattering things and try to get him to sign an agreement there and then before anybody else can stop him.
Any trade deal has to get through Congress before it can be enacted.
As yesterday showed, Trump is deluded and pretty close to being mad. He is entirely untrustworthy. May should have fun with him. But if any US president asks you to attend a meeting you attend that meeting. There will be a lot of words, the Tory press will declare it a total triumph and then not much will happen.
However, we do know that Trump has repeatedly described NATO as not fit for purpose, has often expressed a desire for the EU to break-up and is a protectionist. These three things run directly contrary to British interests in a way that we have not seen from a US administration for decades. Putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office does not change any of those things.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
A second referendum is either “on the table”, “highly likely”, “more likely”, “off the table”, or “all but inevitable”. The First Minister seems to be approaching a second referendum in the way Simone Zaza approaches a World Cup penalty. An understanding of the swing voters from 2014 offers clues to why she is so reluctant to take her shot.
You can march as far as you want, burn limos, chuck rocks through shop windows, wave your well thought out placards and scream on twitter until your lungs explode, but Trump is still President. He is barmier than I thought he would be, and the first day or so hasn't exactly filled me with hope, but the US system made him top dog, and we have to deal with him. May is right to go and see him. Every world leader will need to meet him.
Just to put that point a bit more strongly, if there's ever been a leader it's worth meeting personally, it's Trump.
Normally a president will already have well thought-out views, and will also have advice from experts. It's probably quite unusual to be able to substantially sway their opinion by talking to them personally.
As far as we can tell, Trump is breathtakingly ignorant, has no settled political philosophy, goes with his gut and doesn't listen to advice. It's a long-shot but May's best bet is to get over there as fast as she possibly can, get him in a room, say a bunch of flattering things and try to get him to sign an agreement there and then before anybody else can stop him.
Probably worth giving it a go.
Heads of terms;
1. The windfarm near Donald's golf course gets moved. 2. US tariffs lowered by 95% 3. UK tariffs lowered by 5% 4. At least one nice story about Donald on the BBC every day. 5. We'll send the queen out for one last visit to America. Otherwise you're getting Charles.
That last one could be quite a big carrot to hang in front of donald.
Nothing legitimizes a president more than a visit from the queen.
You can march as far as you want, burn limos, chuck rocks through shop windows, wave your well thought out placards and scream on twitter until your lungs explode, but Trump is still President. He is barmier than I thought he would be, and the first day or so hasn't exactly filled me with hope, but the US system made him top dog, and we have to deal with him. May is right to go and see him. Every world leader will need to meet him. Oh, and you Labour fellas really don't do your party any favours with the way you talk about women who don't share your political beliefs. Stay classy, lads.
I'd a peek at Twitter in the small hours - and I ended crying with laughter at some of the ridiculous antics, wailing, unfortunate photos of protestors.
The interweb never forgets - and I'd die of embarrassment if I appeared in any of them.
It's a more fruitful use of time to figure out why you lost, and what you need to do to win next time.
I think many of these people are years from this sort of self reflection - if ever.
Philip Kyle in the New Statesman hedges his bets on Jean-Luc Mélenchon (excuse me for not thinking paraleipsis is cool), but hats off to him for noticing what's going on with Mélenchon, candidate for the Left Party. Disillusion with and low interest in the SP does indeed help Mélenchon's profile and vice versa.
Mélenchon is polling well ahead of all of the SP contenders, and he will probably continue to outshine them even when the nominee enjoys a post-primary boost.
It could just about happen that the second round is fought between Le Pen and Mélenchon. If the SP candidate were to place a strong third in the first round, Mélenchon might drop out, but I don't envisage him withdrawing if third place goes to Fillon. I have no view on who would be most likely to win if it's Le Pen versus Mélenchon.
This election is about polarisation.
Mélenchon and Le Pen may well combine to call for televised debates. Together they are polling at around 40%. If they can rope in some of the minor candidates (Dupont-Aignan is already onside, and surely the minor left and green candidates will jump at the chance to get their faces on the television), we could be talking about candidates who account for a MAJORITY of pollees calling for pre-first round TV debates. In that sencario, they may get what they want. Cue further polarisation and boosts for Mélenchon and Le Pen.
This is a good interview. Kudos to both May and Marr.
She is very confident and does not suffer fools gladly.
We are very lucky at this moment in history to have a Prime Minister who will always put Britain first and will admonish Trump over his attitudes to women without any shadow of doubt
Really?
Yes
In what way?
Trump- "Theresa, great to see the English PM here, it's gonna be great, so good, we're making the special relationship great again".
May- "Cheers, Don. You've got to stop being such a racist, sexiest, misogynistic, loud mouthed tosser. Now, how about a trade deal?"
It might work.......
As long as Tessy tells Don he's the sexiest, he'll take the rest. Big G might get jealous though.
@paul__johnson: Marr: 2m women marched against Trump. Will you raise issue with him? May: I will be raising issues of special relationship. That's a no.
What a ridiculous question. Marr is an awful, awful interviewer.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
The Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) is the single biggest Trump policy position that no-one is talking about. And they're not talking about it for a number of reasons...
In essence the BTA says anything imported into the US incurs a corporate tax liability equivalent to if said import was made in the US.
Now, at its simplest, this says to Ford "if you move production (and therefore taxes) down to Mexico, then expect to pay us the tax we're losing by the car being made there rather than here."
The problem is in the details. To stay within the (rough) framework of the WTO Treaties the US has signed, this is being couched as a revenue mechanism rather than a trade one. And it similarly needs - as part of both tax and WTO obligations - to be non-discriminatory.
We in the UK will suffer disproportionately because our exports are high margin - i.e. there's more tax that the US is missing out on than if you shipped them (say) iron ore where your margins are wafer thin.
The other people who would disproportionately suffer would be Middle Eastern countries who ship oil at $60 to the US, when it only costs them $5 to get it out the ground. I can't imagine many Saudi tankers will be heading towards the US. (This is, therefore, a huge bonus relatively to Canadian oil sands, where the cost of extraction is enormous and the profit per barrel low.)
There are a lot of 'devil is in the details' about this because the border tax has to work in one of three ways:
1. The company importing has to show what its exact profit on said item is. (Making it extremely bureaucratic.) 2. The US govt has to charge it on the pre-tax profit rate of said corporate. (Making it a massive subsidy to Amazon.) 3. Or the US govt has to have authority to estimate tax burdens on a case-by-case basis. (Making it extremely susceptible to corruption from border agents.)
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
I think that none of the parties have really gone far enough on gender inequality. Feminism in the Labour Party these days involves putting Kim Kardashian on a pedestal FGS. And Labour electorate's refusal to elect women such as Yvette Cooper - instead opting for Corbyn - is mystifying. A lot of those on the Right seem to be more obsessed with the symbolism of having a female leader than looking into and challenging a lot of the inequialities and issues that everyday women face. Then again, as revealed in recent polling of GOP men there are many on the Right who believe no such issues exist.
By "oppression" I trust that includes the oppression imposed on women by Islamic governments around the world?
No?
Oh.
Godfrey is my favourite satirist - he takes the piss out of snowflakes/SJW/hypocrites. It's so subtle sometimes that he reels in many. Like Skiplicker's parody of IDS but x100.
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
The Financial Times reports that Theresa May will tell Donald Trump that she wants the EU to "continue to be strong". It's in the FT so it must be true. Right?
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
The Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) is the single biggest Trump policy position that no-one is talking about. And they're not talking about it for a number of reasons...
Thanks - his Treasury Secretary nominee appeared to be back-pedalling clarifying matters:
"He hasn't suggested a border tax," Mnuchin responded. "What he's suggested is that for certain companies that move jobs ... that there may be repercussions to that. He has not suggested in anyway an across the board, 35% border tax."
Lights the blue touch paper and heads to the shops
Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, Piers Corbyn, a climate forecaster and fervent supporter of his brother, has issued his latest long-term prediction on Twitter: that Jewish conspirators and the Royal Family will force Donald Trump into war, just like they did to Hitler.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
Without being sexist I'd always chose a man over a woman.
That is the very essence of sexism, and every other '-ism'. Try substituting 'white man'/'black man' or 'Christian/Muslim' as just two examples.
That was the point I was making to Roger. I was trying to show how sexist he is.
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
Come on, it lets PB Righties get in on a bit of virtue signalling action.
As far as nasty and very distasteful goes, I presume you've been coming to PB most days only very recently.
You can march as far as you want, burn limos, chuck rocks through shop windows, wave your well thought out placards and scream on twitter until your lungs explode, but Trump is still President. He is barmier than I thought he would be, and the first day or so hasn't exactly filled me with hope, but the US system made him top dog, and we have to deal with him. May is right to go and see him. Every world leader will need to meet him.
Just to put that point a bit more strongly, if there's ever been a leader it's worth meeting personally, it's Trump.
Normally a president will already have well thought-out views, and will also have advice from experts. It's probably quite unusual to be able to substantially sway their opinion by talking to them personally.
As far as we can tell, Trump is breathtakingly ignorant, has no settled political philosophy, goes with his gut and doesn't listen to advice. It's a long-shot but May's best bet is to get over there as fast as she possibly can, get him in a room, say a bunch of flattering things and try to get him to sign an agreement there and then before anybody else can stop him.
Probably worth giving it a go.
Heads of terms;
1. The windfarm near Donald's golf course gets moved. 2. US tariffs lowered by 95% 3. UK tariffs lowered by 5% 4. At least one nice story about Donald on the BBC every day. 5. We'll send the queen out for one last visit to America. Otherwise you're getting Charles.
That last one could be quite a big carrot to hang in front of donald.
Nothing legitimizes a president more than a visit from the queen.
He's going to want that. bigly.
I think he's going to have to settle for a visit to the queen......talks of 'round of golf at Balmoral' - which is a bit tricky as its a private, not state residence and she goes there for her hols......
Edit - and they're going to want to get him in & out of Scotland without meeting Mrs McTurnip.....
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
If the protest turns into something that revolves around getting organised at a local level to ensure voter registrations, prevent GOIP voter suppression, increase anti-Trump turnout at state and federal elections and so on then it will have been a profoundly important event. If it doesn't, then it will not be - although at a minimum it did allow the world to see that President Trump will be as paranoid, snowflakey and mendacious as candidate Trump was.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
Tough isn't it? Between finding one that doesn't act like a 'bitch in heat' but can still give a good 'bj whilst reading an autocue'. Does such a creature exist one wonders?
I think Madonna broke the Attention Seeking meter when she offered blow-jobs 'looking at you' to those who voted HRC, and saying she'd thought a lot about blowing up the White House.
Who is the "we" in that statement. We, the British public, don't want to buy Chevy's for £10k. That's why we don't do it now. They're crap.
The one thing Trump's cabinet is stuffed with is businessmen, I'd expect trade deals to be good for the USA.
And bad for us. Poorer food standards. ISDS court for multinationals. One thing it won't deliver - Taking Back Control.
The US/EU tariffs are already relatively low. It is the regulations and standards that are the problem. US will insist for the UK that they are US standards. It might cause us problems exporting UK goods with US standard to the EU.
You mean we’d have to dumb down to the Septic standards?
Yes. I've wondered whether US obesity is caused in part by the growth hormone in their beef. Probably not, but who knows.
The US population are guinea pigs for the rest of us on food standards e.g. GM. The US approach is business led. You can use anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. The EU approach (and UK) is consumer led. You can use anything that is proven to be safe. There is a big gap in the middle. If we go for a US FTA we inevitably have to take the US approach.
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
A magnificent lack of self-awareness there :-D
And your post are very similar so nothing to be proud of either so not surprised you agree with rogers
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
As someone on the Left I can tell you that plenty of righties on this site dish about abuse. It's not limited to one side.
Nothing legitimizes a president more than a visit from the queen.
He's going to want that. bigly.
He probably will, but because it makes him feel good - even if to the discerning observer it makes him appear like Hastings Banda - not because it legitimises him.
Philip Kyle in the New Statesman hedges his bets on Jean-Luc Mélenchon (excuse me for not thinking paraleipsis is cool), but hats off to him for noticing what's going on with Mélenchon, candidate for the Left Party. Disillusion with and low interest in the SP does indeed help Mélenchon's profile and vice versa.
Mélenchon is polling well ahead of all of the SP contenders, and he will probably continue to outshine them even when the nominee enjoys a post-primary boost.
It could just about happen that the second round is fought between Le Pen and Mélenchon. If the SP candidate placed a strong third in the first round, Mélenchon might drop out, but I don't envisage him withdrawing if third place goes to Fillon. I have no view on who would be most likely to win if it's Le Pen versus Mélenchon.
This election is about polarisation.
Mélenchon and Le Pen may well combine to call for televised debates. Together they are polling at around 40%. If they can rope in some of the minor candidates (Dupont-Aignan is already onside, and surely the minor left and green candidates will jump at the chance to get their faces on the television), we could be talking about candidates who account for a MAJORITY of pollees calling for pre-first round TV debates. In that sencario, they may get what they want. Cue further polarisation and boosts for Mélenchon and Le Pen.
If Sarkozy had been the LR candidate, I think that would have been a plausible, even a likely, outcome.
But Melanchon is polling 9-10 points behind Fillon in every poll. If you look at how the Socialist vote splits depending on the candidate, you see that they are more likely to lose votes to the Right (to Macron) than to the Left Front.
For Melanchon to make it, I think you need to see Bayrou stand and to take 3-4% from Macron to knock him back to the low to mid-teens. You then need Fillon to drop votes to someone - perhaps Bayrou again? And you need the c. 10% of Socalists to break overwhelmingly for Melanchon. Perhaps a result like this:
FN 28% FG 20% LR 19% EM 13% MoDem 10% PS 6%
Now, is that a possible result? Yes.
Is it a likely result? I'd argue no. Essentially it only happens if the Right / Centre Right vote fractures in three ways between LR / EM / MoDem, and PS voters desert them for the Left Front and not Macron.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
If the protest turns into something that revolves around getting organised at a local level to ensure voter registrations, prevent GOIP voter suppression, increase anti-Trump turnout at state and federal elections and so on then it will have been a profoundly important event. If it doesn't, then it will not be - although at a minimum it did allow the world to see that President Trump will be as paranoid, snowflakey and mendacious as candidate Trump was.
Since when have protests ever turned into anything more? I guess the student protests resulted in Corbyn, not sure I'd count that as a positive result.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
The women's march was way bigger than I thought it would be. I know they say protests don't make a difference but I just wonder how many groups got attention who otherwise wouldn't havee. And now have donations, people donating and volunteering for those groups.
The left must march and protest it is in their DNA. They don't turnout to vote unless really motivated and marches and rallies like these are the precursor to that.
The Financial Times reports that Theresa May will tell Donald Trump that she wants the EU to "continue to be strong". It's in the FT so it must be true. Right?
It's a direct quote from an interview - why would it not be?
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
The Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) is the single biggest Trump policy position that no-one is talking about. And they're not talking about it for a number of reasons...
In essence the BTA says anything imported into the US incurs a corporate tax liability equivalent to if said import was made in the US.
Now, at its simplest, this says to Ford "if you move production (and therefore taxes) down to Mexico, then expect to pay us the tax we're losing by the car being made there rather than here."
The problem is in the details. To stay within the (rough) framework of the WTO Treaties the US has signed, this is being couched as a revenue mechanism rather than a trade one. And it similarly needs - as part of both tax and WTO obligations - to be non-discriminatory.
We in the UK will suffer disproportionately because our exports are high margin - i.e. there's more tax that the US is missing out on than if you shipped them (say) iron ore where your margins are wafer thin.
The other people who would disproportionately suffer would be Middle Eastern countries who ship oil at $60 to the US, when it only costs them $5 to get it out the ground. I can't imagine many Saudi tankers will be heading towards the US. (This is, therefore, a huge bonus relatively to Canadian oil sands, where the cost of extraction is enormous and the profit per barrel low.)
There are a lot of 'devil is in the details' about this because the border tax has to work in one of three ways:
1. The company importing has to show what its exact profit on said item is. (Making it extremely bureaucratic.) 2. The US govt has to charge it on the pre-tax profit rate of said corporate. (Making it a massive subsidy to Amazon.) 3. Or the US govt has to have authority to estimate tax burdens on a case-by-case basis. (Making it extremely susceptible to corruption from border agents.)
I think he's going to have to settle for a visit to the queen......talks of 'round of golf at Balmoral' - which is a bit tricky as its a private, not state residence and she goes there for her hols......
Can't a billionairess let a billionaire hit a ball with a stick in her garden?
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
As someone on the Left I can tell you that plenty of righties on this site dish about abuse. It's not limited to one side.
I only come here for the distasteful and nasty stuff.
I don't see how we can be exempted from the Border Income Tax Adjustment, which will screw HMG and British firms particularly hard, irrespective of any free trade deal.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
It affects the UK disproportionately because the UK is pretty dependent on trade
A reciprocal tax doesn't make things better, it makes things worse. If somebody cuts off your foot, you cutting off your other foot doesn't makes things better. Taxes hurt both sides of the transaction: it makes the good more expensive for the purchaser and it reduces the profit for the seller. Less of the good gets sold, the seller makes less money, the putchaser gets less utility. Nobody wins.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
Had Clinton won, we'd have seen a huge bloodletting on the GOP side as those who backed Trump would have found themselves swamped by a GOP establishment onslaught while Trump would have tweeted the injustice of it all and been ignored.
The "right" are enjoying the moment - let them, they will be accountable for it all from now on.
I love the nonsense - apparently for 40 years Britain was run by a metropolitan lefty liberal establishment. I wouldn't describe Margaret Thatcher in those terms but there you go.
More seriously, Sean F makes the valuable point about understanding why you lost - you have basically two options, either go to the people or wait for the people to come to you.
'However, we do know that Trump has repeatedly described NATO as not fit for purpose, has often expressed a desire for the EU to break-up and is a protectionist. These three things run directly contrary to British interests in a way that we have not seen from a US administration for decades. Putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office does not change any of those things.'
And that is why the relationship with the UK is so important. Theresa May has a huge job to do to influence Trump in the right way and I cannot think of any world leader who is better placed. The fact she is a woman is an antidote to his anti women views, that she supports NATO and the 2% commitment will be a plus and that she has stated that she wants the EU to succeed.
He will not agree to an EU army and the importance of NATO will be shared with the EU and in particular the Baltic Countries which cannot defy him if they want his support. He will be a problem for Merkel not least because he dislikes anything that Obama liked and also that he does not support the EU but is looking for individual trade deals rather than with blocks.
The benefit to the UK is that circumstances have changed so dramtically in the last few days that the thought that the EU would even attempt to punish us for leaving is off the table and the end game will be a special UK deal that works for all - and drinks all round
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
Not just the last few days.
Roger spent a long time trying to justify sexual harrassment by some favoured lefty (I forget who) on the ground that when he worked with young women they understood that wandering hands were part of the deal.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
The women's march was way bigger than I thought it would be. I know they say protests don't make a difference but I just wonder how many groups got attention who otherwise wouldn't havee. And now have donations, people donating and volunteering for those groups.
The left must march and protest it is in their DNA. They don't turnout to vote unless really motivated and marches and rallies like these are the precursor to that.
They aren't the precursor to anything, they are almost invariably postcursors; see for instance the pro EU march of 2 July. Immaculate timing, lads.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
The Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) is the single biggest Trump policy position that no-one is talking about. And they're not talking about it for a number of reasons...
In essence the BTA says anything imported into the US incurs a corporate tax liability equivalent to if said import was made in the US.
Now, at its simplest, this says to Ford "if you move production (and therefore taxes) down to Mexico, then expect to pay us the tax we're losing by the car being made there rather than here."
The problem is in the details. To stay within the (rough) framework of the WTO Treaties the US has signed, this is being couched as a revenue mechanism rather than a trade one. And it similarly needs - as part of both tax and WTO obligations - to be non-discriminatory.
We in the UK will suffer disproportionately because our exports are high margin - i.e. there's more tax that the US is missing out on than if you shipped them (say) iron ore where your margins are wafer thin.
The other people who would disproportionately suffer would be Middle Eastern countries who ship oil at $60 to the US, when it only costs them $5 to get it out the ground. I can't imagine many Saudi tankers will be heading towards the US. (This is, therefore, a huge bonus relatively to Canadian oil sands, where the cost of extraction is enormous and the profit per barrel low.)
There are a lot of 'devil is in the details' about this because the border tax has to work in one of three ways:
1. The company importing has to show what its exact profit on said item is. (Making it extremely bureaucratic.) 2. The US govt has to charge it on the pre-tax profit rate of said corporate. (Making it a massive subsidy to Amazon.) 3. Or the US govt has to have authority to estimate tax burdens on a case-by-case basis. (Making it extremely susceptible to corruption from border agents.)
4 have a set rate for each industry?
Do you assume the margin is the same on DRAM and on microprocessors?
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
If the protest turns into something that revolves around getting organised at a local level to ensure voter registrations, prevent GOIP voter suppression, increase anti-Trump turnout at state and federal elections and so on then it will have been a profoundly important event. If it doesn't, then it will not be - although at a minimum it did allow the world to see that President Trump will be as paranoid, snowflakey and mendacious as candidate Trump was.
Yep. They now have to work on getting people out to vote in 2018 if they really want to send a message to Trump. I'm surprised Trump hasn't tweeted about the protestors. His team really must be telling him 'no.'
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
Not just the last few days.
Roger spent a long time trying to justify sexual harrassment by some favoured lefty (I forget who) on the ground that when he worked with young women they understood that wandering hands were part of the deal.
I think we all agree that us lefties are venal, wicked people who hate the UK and whose hypocrisy and contempt for the working class knows no bounds. That's a given, isn't it? And, of course, lefties are the only ones who throw insults around and denigrate their political opponents. If only we could be as *good* as people who hold right wing beliefs. But we're not: we are bad.
By "oppression" I trust that includes the oppression imposed on women by Islamic governments around the world?
No?
Oh.
Godfrey is my favourite satirist - he takes the piss out of snowflakes/SJW/hypocrites. It's so subtle sometimes that he reels in many. Like Skiplicker's parody of IDS but x100.
He has chosen to "identify" as Owen Jones' son, and is now accusing him of child abuse because he blocked him on twitter!
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
Not just the last few days.
Roger spent a long time trying to justify sexual harrassment by some favoured lefty (I forget who) on the ground that when he worked with young women they understood that wandering hands were part of the deal.
It's actually worse than that.
Roger was a robust defender of Jimmy Saville - 'witnesses not credible' 'parents fault' 'they knew what they were doing'......
By "oppression" I trust that includes the oppression imposed on women by Islamic governments around the world?
No?
Oh.
That's the point the tweeter is making, it was a joke!
Ah fair enough - this is why I don't get into Twitter (either writing or reading) as you need more words than is allowed to get across opinions and thoughts.
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
If the protest turns into something that revolves around getting organised at a local level to ensure voter registrations, prevent GOIP voter suppression, increase anti-Trump turnout at state and federal elections and so on then it will have been a profoundly important event. If it doesn't, then it will not be - although at a minimum it did allow the world to see that President Trump will be as paranoid, snowflakey and mendacious as candidate Trump was.
Yep. They now have to work on getting people out to vote in 2018 if they really want to send a message to Trump. I'm surprised Trump hasn't tweeted about the protestors. His team really must be telling him 'no.'
I think a big part of it is that Trump just doesn't care about the protests. He'll see it as a Leftwing Democratic Women thing. They'll never vote for him, and nothing he could ever do would make them vote for him, so "feck 'em!"
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
No. Women on the right are treated the same as men on the right - correctly, as greedy, narrow-minded graspers whose inability to look outside their own grubby self-serving motivations is dragging civilisation and the natural world headlong towards complete destruction.
Why would it affect the UK disproportionately and would a reciprocal tax not help even things out?
The Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) is the single biggest Trump policy position that no-one is talking about. And they're not talking about it for a number of reasons...
In essence the BTA says anything imported into the US incurs a corporate tax liability equivalent to if said import was made in the US.
Now, at its simplest, this says to Ford "if you move production (and therefore taxes) down to Mexico, then expect to pay us the tax we're losing by the car being made there rather than here."
The problem is in the details. To stay within the (rough) framework of the WTO Treaties the US has signed, this is being couched as a revenue mechanism rather than a trade one. And it similarly needs - as part of both tax and WTO obligations - to be non-discriminatory.
We in the UK will suffer disproportionately because our exports are high margin - i.e. there's more tax that the US is missing out on than if you shipped them (say) iron ore where your margins are wafer thin.
The other people who would disproportionately suffer would be Middle Eastern countries who ship oil at $60 to the US, when it only costs them $5 to get it out the ground. I can't imagine many Saudi tankers will be heading towards the US. (This is, therefore, a huge bonus relatively to Canadian oil sands, where the cost of extraction is enormous and the profit per barrel low.)
There are a lot of 'devil is in the details' about this because the border tax has to work in one of three ways:
1. The company importing has to show what its exact profit on said item is. (Making it extremely bureaucratic.) 2. The US govt has to charge it on the pre-tax profit rate of said corporate. (Making it a massive subsidy to Amazon.) 3. Or the US govt has to have authority to estimate tax burdens on a case-by-case basis. (Making it extremely susceptible to corruption from border agents.)
4 have a set rate for each industry?
Do you assume the margin is the same on DRAM and on microprocessors?
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
The women's march was way bigger than I thought it would be. I know they say protests don't make a difference but I just wonder how many groups got attention who otherwise wouldn't havee. And now have donations, people donating and volunteering for those groups.
The left must march and protest it is in their DNA. They don't turnout to vote unless really motivated and marches and rallies like these are the precursor to that.
I agree with you 150%.
@stodge Yeah, I'm always gobsmacked by the idea that politics has been dominated by liberal-lefties for the last several decades. The liberal-left have got their way on certain issues like abortion, gay rights, and so on. Although many of these positions now no longer even exclusively belong to the liberal-left. Unlike in the US, many Conservatives here are pro-choice and pro gay rights. But most of the time it's the Conservatives who have been in power in this country. Thatcher, who is the single most influential British PM of the last 50 years is hardly a liberal leftie.
'However, we do know that Trump has repeatedly described NATO as not fit for purpose, has often expressed a desire for the EU to break-up and is a protectionist. These three things run directly contrary to British interests in a way that we have not seen from a US administration for decades. Putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office does not change any of those things.'
And that is why the relationship with the UK is so important. Theresa May has a huge job to do to influence Trump in the right way and I cannot think of any world leader who is better placed. The fact she is a woman is an antidote to his anti women views, that she supports NATO and the 2% commitment will be a plus and that she has stated that she wants the EU to succeed.
He will not agree to an EU army and the importance of NATO will be shared with the EU and in particular the Baltic Countries which cannot defy him if they want his support. He will be a problem for Merkel not least because he dislikes anything that Obama liked and also that he does not support the EU but is looking for individual trade deals rather than with blocks.
The benefit to the UK is that circumstances have changed so dramtically in the last few days that the thought that the EU would even attempt to punish us for leaving is off the table and the end game will be a special UK deal that works for all - and drinks all round
The UK was never going to be punished. The fools were the people who listened to Commission functionaries with platforms but no power. The Brexit deal will be done by the Germans and the French, with smaller member states using the veto as a threat to get concessions. However, we need to accept that if you leave a club you no longer get the benefits of membership. When the Europeans insist on that, it is not punishing us it is stating a self-evident truth.
May does have a huge job with Trump. America First is a very difficult slogan for him to inch away from. He will have to if the UK is to get anything positive from him.
Ms. Apocalypse, Thatcher left power over a quarter of a century ago.
Mr. Wisemann, it's a little perplexing. Many of those who really love diversity seem to have a problem with it when it comes to political opinions. Someone disagreeing with you isn't a sign they're morally defective.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
No. Women on the right are treated the same as men on the right - correctly, as greedy, narrow-minded graspers whose inability to look outside their own grubby self-serving motivations is dragging civilisation and the natural world headlong towards complete destruction.
Still doesn't explain why Labour haven't had a female leader in the four decades since the Tories had one.....
I knew the protest wasn't going to go down so well on this site. The left have always been done things like protesting and they should continue to do so. The role of the left is not to morph into a idenkit replica of the right and their way of doing things.
If the protest turns into something that revolves around getting organised at a local level to ensure voter registrations, prevent GOIP voter suppression, increase anti-Trump turnout at state and federal elections and so on then it will have been a profoundly important event. If it doesn't, then it will not be - although at a minimum it did allow the world to see that President Trump will be as paranoid, snowflakey and mendacious as candidate Trump was.
Yep. They now have to work on getting people out to vote in 2018 if they really want to send a message to Trump. I'm surprised Trump hasn't tweeted about the protestors. His team really must be telling him 'no.'
I think a big part of it is that Trump just doesn't care about the protests. He'll see it as a Leftwing Democratic Women thing. They'll never vote for him, and nothing he could ever do would make them vote for him, so "feck 'em!"
I think the trouble is Trump is incredibly sensitive to criticism. This is a man who got wound up on twitter over losing the popular vote when he won the election anyway. Trump still goes on about Hillary even though she is essentially no longer relevant. So I think Trump wouldn't be too happy to see women not just in America, but across the world march against him. This is a guy who was so wound up about people saying that only 250k attended his inauguration that his press secretary had pictures of the inauguration in the WH press room to show how 'popular' the Donald is.
I come to this site most days to read and be 'entertained' but lately it has degenerated into nothing but a nasty cheap self opinionated one. Today especially reading Rogers posts I have come to the conclusion there is nothing worse than a bad loser. Once their arguments have been exhausted and found wanting they resort to abuse and ridicule. Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say. Nasty and very distateful all round
A magnificent lack of self-awareness there :-D
Shropshire Ladd is only saying what a lot of us have said in one way or another in the past and some of the comments this morning have been way of the scale.
I am not immune from the odd broadside (often in my support for Theresa May) but you accept that this is part of today's social media. Tyson, bless him, had a real go recently but he apologised and I accepted and now we have respectful dialogue. That's the way it should be
Who isn't? Last night's press conference was extraordinary. Telling flat-out, demonstrable lies is a high-risk strategy. Team Trump has a first-adopter advantage, but you can bet that others will catch up and supersede - that's always what happens with disruptive breakthroughs.
Ms. Apocalypse, Thatcher left power over a quarter of a century ago.
Mr. Wisemann, it's a little perplexing. Many of those who really love diversity seem to have a problem with it when it comes to political opinions. Someone disagreeing with you isn't a sign they're morally defective.
Yes. And my point is, is that even after she left office she was still hugely influential. Does anybody believe that Blair and New Labour would have happened without Thatcher?
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
No. Women on the right are treated the same as men on the right - correctly, as greedy, narrow-minded graspers whose inability to look outside their own grubby self-serving motivations is dragging civilisation and the natural world headlong towards complete destruction.
And the British ones are often cruel with it. Nothing they hate more than oiks, scrotes, members of the public, proles on public transport, etc.
Seems some of the tone of the Press Secretary's remarks has passed over to here this morning.
The "dance" of the first meeting between the incoming President and the British Prime Minister is one of those little bits of tradition but the "relationship" is important. Harold Macmillan thought he would be the "wise old Uncle" to JFK in 1961.
I expect Nixon and Wilson found they had more things in common than they expected.
Moving forward, we had Thatcher and Reagan who were ideological soulmates so that was fine.
Major's first meeting with Clinton was, I believe, overshadowed by the Conservative Party's hamfisted interference in support of George HW Bush in the 1992 election. The new administration owed us no favours.
Blair and George W Bush met in early 2001 and there were many of the same "concerns" about the younger Bush as there are about Trump in terms of his knowledge of the wider world and the sense domestic rather than international concerns would take priority. Events eight months later would change all that.
Brown and Obama met at the height of the global financial crisis - when I was in Las Vegas in late 2008, the DJIA was trading around 7500.
Interesting to hear some on here waxing lyrical about some form of economic tie up between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain - we could just call it Oceania and we'll become Airstrip One, shall we ? So much for "Global Britain", it's a headlong retreat to the Anglosphere running back to hide behind Washington.
Whether we like it or not, outside the EU, Britain will need to improve and strengthen economic ties beyond the familiar and the friendly - that means Russia, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia and a raft of other developing countries whose economies will be the powerhouses of the 21st Century. Getting good trade deals with those countries is as important as a nice deal with New Zealand or Australia which aren't perhaps as "British" as some on here think or believe.
I agree with almost all this. Closer ties with Canada, Australia and NZ are about the only diplomatic wins from Brexit. Even so "Anglosphere" is a nonsense and we're better forgetting the idea forthwith. We need to develop ties outside those countries and of the EU. Wedon't need to leave the EU to do this, of course. It probably makes it a bit more difficult, but Brexit may provide the push we need. Above all, we need to develop ties with the EU from outside. An irony of Brexit is that dealing with the EU from outside will be much more consuming than when were in it.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
Not just the last few days.
Roger spent a long time trying to justify sexual harrassment by some favoured lefty (I forget who) on the ground that when he worked with young women they understood that wandering hands were part of the deal.
I think we all agree that us lefties are venal, wicked people who hate the UK and whose hypocrisy and contempt for the working class knows no bounds. That's a given, isn't it? And, of course, lefties are the only ones who throw insults around and denigrate their political opponents. If only we could be as *good* as people who hold right wing beliefs. But we're not: we are bad.
I don't think the pb "right" claim to be good. They just think they are correct in their analysis of the political situation. It is the very very peculiar insistence of the "left" that they are the more virtuous that is irksome. It is very difficult to suppress an occasional sneer when some talk of abandoning Labour now that the party is threatening the interests of those who have the odd quarter of a million sloshing around in their bank account, unused.
How annoying. My PayPal account has been compromised and I've had two hundred plus emails signing me up to subscriptions.
Credit to PayPal they caught fraudulent purchase of a phone within an hour or so. And promptly refunded my card. Haven't been a victim of this in over a decade so a timely reminder re security.
I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.
You pompous arse!!
so why dont you elect women ?
I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.
I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.
Roger
even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader
fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman
I don't think it's a left-right thing though
Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?
Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?
I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.
No. Women on the right are treated the same as men on the right - correctly, as greedy, narrow-minded graspers whose inability to look outside their own grubby self-serving motivations is dragging civilisation and the natural world headlong towards complete destruction.
Still doesn't explain why Labour haven't had a female leader in the four decades since the Tories had one.....
The explanation is a simple one: there has not been a candidate who commanded enough support among members. Which woman *should* Labour have chosen over Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown? I will give you Cooper over Corbyn, but almost everyone agrees that the campaign she ran in 2015 was very poor, so it's probably that which scuppered her rather than her gender.
Ms. Apocalypse, Thatcher left power over a quarter of a century ago.
Mr. Wisemann, it's a little perplexing. Many of those who really love diversity seem to have a problem with it when it comes to political opinions. Someone disagreeing with you isn't a sign they're morally defective.
Yes. And my point is, is that even after she left office she was still hugely influential. Does anybody believe that Blair and New Labour would have happened without Thatcher?
Blair happened because John Smith died and Kinnock?
Miss Plato, my sympathy. Glad the firm got it quickly.
Ms. Apocalypse, moving to the right economically is one thing. Labour also opened the migration floodgates to rub the Right's face in diversity. The PC bullshit is another reason why Rotherham took so long to be taken seriously.
Comments
As a Tory you should be disturbed is she spends any of her 20 minutes with the President signaling her virtue on things that are not going to change, rather than pushing forward on issues that might help the country, like challenging the idiotic border tax proposals.
Premiership
1 Con
Championship
10 Con
League 1
10 Con
League 2
12 Con
Conference
19 Con
http://www.may2015.com/ideas/election-2015-football-lays-bare-the-great-divides-in-british-politics/
I've said out before that British elections are won and lost in places which sound like lower division football clubs - the Conference reads almost like a list of marginal constituencies.
Edit: 10 Championship teams in 2015 based in Conservative constituencies if Bolton Wanderers play in Bolton West.
No?
Oh.
Seems some of the tone of the Press Secretary's remarks has passed over to here this morning.
The "dance" of the first meeting between the incoming President and the British Prime Minister is one of those little bits of tradition but the "relationship" is important. Harold Macmillan thought he would be the "wise old Uncle" to JFK in 1961.
I expect Nixon and Wilson found they had more things in common than they expected.
Moving forward, we had Thatcher and Reagan who were ideological soulmates so that was fine.
Major's first meeting with Clinton was, I believe, overshadowed by the Conservative Party's hamfisted interference in support of George HW Bush in the 1992 election. The new administration owed us no favours.
Blair and George W Bush met in early 2001 and there were many of the same "concerns" about the younger Bush as there are about Trump in terms of his knowledge of the wider world and the sense domestic rather than international concerns would take priority. Events eight months later would change all that.
Brown and Obama met at the height of the global financial crisis - when I was in Las Vegas in late 2008, the DJIA was trading around 7500.
Interesting to hear some on here waxing lyrical about some form of economic tie up between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain - we could just call it Oceania and we'll become Airstrip One, shall we ? So much for "Global Britain", it's a headlong retreat to the Anglosphere running back to hide behind Washington.
Whether we like it or not, outside the EU, Britain will need to improve and strengthen economic ties beyond the familiar and the friendly - that means Russia, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia and a raft of other developing countries whose economies will be the powerhouses of the 21st Century. Getting good trade deals with those countries is as important as a nice deal with New Zealand or Australia which aren't perhaps as "British" as some on here think or believe.
Heads of terms;
1. The windfarm near Donald's golf course gets moved.
2. US tariffs lowered by 95%
3. UK tariffs lowered by 5%
4. At least one nice story about Donald on the BBC every day.
5. We'll send the queen out for one last visit to America. Otherwise you're getting Charles.
As for actively campaigning for it - I'll leave that to these campaigners who clearly already are prepared to spend their time campaigning for women's issues... they just need to open their eyes and direct their energies at the real oppressors of women - and it's not Western politicians.
As yesterday showed, Trump is deluded and pretty close to being mad. He is entirely untrustworthy. May should have fun with him. But if any US president asks you to attend a meeting you attend that meeting. There will be a lot of words, the Tory press will declare it a total triumph and then not much will happen.
However, we do know that Trump has repeatedly described NATO as not fit for purpose, has often expressed a desire for the EU to break-up and is a protectionist. These three things run directly contrary to British interests in a way that we have not seen from a US administration for decades. Putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office does not change any of those things.
https://medium.com/@blairmcdougall/why-nicola-sturgeon-is-frozen-in-front-of-goal-4618fc79e078#.9q9t2pvol
Nothing legitimizes a president more than a visit from the queen.
He's going to want that. bigly.
Mélenchon is polling well ahead of all of the SP contenders, and he will probably continue to outshine them even when the nominee enjoys a post-primary boost.
It could just about happen that the second round is fought between Le Pen and Mélenchon. If the SP candidate were to place a strong third in the first round, Mélenchon might drop out, but I don't envisage him withdrawing if third place goes to Fillon. I have no view on who would be most likely to win if it's Le Pen versus Mélenchon.
This election is about polarisation.
Mélenchon and Le Pen may well combine to call for televised debates. Together they are polling at around 40%. If they can rope in some of the minor candidates (Dupont-Aignan is already onside, and surely the minor left and green candidates will jump at the chance to get their faces on the television), we could be talking about candidates who account for a MAJORITY of pollees calling for pre-first round TV debates. In that sencario, they may get what they want. Cue further polarisation and boosts for Mélenchon and Le Pen.
In essence the BTA says anything imported into the US incurs a corporate tax liability equivalent to if said import was made in the US.
Now, at its simplest, this says to Ford "if you move production (and therefore taxes) down to Mexico, then expect to pay us the tax we're losing by the car being made there rather than here."
The problem is in the details. To stay within the (rough) framework of the WTO Treaties the US has signed, this is being couched as a revenue mechanism rather than a trade one. And it similarly needs - as part of both tax and WTO obligations - to be non-discriminatory.
We in the UK will suffer disproportionately because our exports are high margin - i.e. there's more tax that the US is missing out on than if you shipped them (say) iron ore where your margins are wafer thin.
The other people who would disproportionately suffer would be Middle Eastern countries who ship oil at $60 to the US, when it only costs them $5 to get it out the ground. I can't imagine many Saudi tankers will be heading towards the US. (This is, therefore, a huge bonus relatively to Canadian oil sands, where the cost of extraction is enormous and the profit per barrel low.)
There are a lot of 'devil is in the details' about this because the border tax has to work in one of three ways:
1. The company importing has to show what its exact profit on said item is. (Making it extremely bureaucratic.)
2. The US govt has to charge it on the pre-tax profit rate of said corporate. (Making it a massive subsidy to Amazon.)
3. Or the US govt has to have authority to estimate tax burdens on a case-by-case basis. (Making it extremely susceptible to corruption from border agents.)
Roger you are behaving like a very spoiled child that when not getting his way lashes out with venom and hate. You should be ashamed. If you cant post or argue sensibly then you should just leave this site and fume alone. That goes for others that have nothing constructive to say.
Nasty and very distateful all round
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/823122855361658881
"He hasn't suggested a border tax," Mnuchin responded. "What he's suggested is that for certain companies that move jobs ... that there may be repercussions to that. He has not suggested in anyway an across the board, 35% border tax."
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/19/news/economy/mnuchin-trump-border-tax/
Are you suggesting that would be non-WTO compliant so his options are 'across the board' or 'none'?
Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, Piers Corbyn, a climate forecaster and fervent supporter of his brother, has issued his latest long-term prediction on Twitter: that Jewish conspirators and the Royal Family will force Donald Trump into war, just like they did to Hitler.
https://antisemitism.uk/piers-corbyn-tweets-jewish-conspiracy-will-force-trump-into-war-just-like-they-did-to-hitler/
As far as nasty and very distasteful goes, I presume you've been coming to PB most days only very recently.
Edit - and they're going to want to get him in & out of Scotland without meeting Mrs McTurnip.....
It's just pathetically juvenile
The US population are guinea pigs for the rest of us on food standards e.g. GM. The US approach is business led. You can use anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. The EU approach (and UK) is consumer led. You can use anything that is proven to be safe. There is a big gap in the middle. If we go for a US FTA we inevitably have to take the US approach.
@DavidHerdson: If Trump carries on like his CIA speech and the press conferemce, he won't see out the year in office. #25thAmendment.
@DavidHerdson: Bluster, no questions and a Big Fat Lie. Ironic that the biggest Snowflake in the world is the fascist in the White House.
But Melanchon is polling 9-10 points behind Fillon in every poll. If you look at how the Socialist vote splits depending on the candidate, you see that they are more likely to lose votes to the Right (to Macron) than to the Left Front.
For Melanchon to make it, I think you need to see Bayrou stand and to take 3-4% from Macron to knock him back to the low to mid-teens. You then need Fillon to drop votes to someone - perhaps Bayrou again? And you need the c. 10% of Socalists to break overwhelmingly for Melanchon. Perhaps a result like this: Now, is that a possible result? Yes.
Is it a likely result? I'd argue no. Essentially it only happens if the Right / Centre Right vote fractures in three ways between LR / EM / MoDem, and PS voters desert them for the Left Front and not Macron.
The left must march and protest it is in their DNA. They don't turnout to vote unless really motivated and marches and rallies like these are the precursor to that.
A reciprocal tax doesn't make things better, it makes things worse. If somebody cuts off your foot, you cutting off your other foot doesn't makes things better. Taxes hurt both sides of the transaction: it makes the good more expensive for the purchaser and it reduces the profit for the seller. Less of the good gets sold, the seller makes less money, the putchaser gets less utility. Nobody wins.
The "right" are enjoying the moment - let them, they will be accountable for it all from now on.
I love the nonsense - apparently for 40 years Britain was run by a metropolitan lefty liberal establishment. I wouldn't describe Margaret Thatcher in those terms but there you go.
More seriously, Sean F makes the valuable point about understanding why you lost - you have basically two options, either go to the people or wait for the people to come to you.
'However, we do know that Trump has repeatedly described NATO as not fit for purpose, has often expressed a desire for the EU to break-up and is a protectionist. These three things run directly contrary to British interests in a way that we have not seen from a US administration for decades. Putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office does not change any of those things.'
And that is why the relationship with the UK is so important. Theresa May has a huge job to do to influence Trump in the right way and I cannot think of any world leader who is better placed. The fact she is a woman is an antidote to his anti women views, that she supports NATO and the 2% commitment will be a plus and that she has stated that she wants the EU to succeed.
He will not agree to an EU army and the importance of NATO will be shared with the EU and in particular the Baltic Countries which cannot defy him if they want his support. He will be a problem for Merkel not least because he dislikes anything that Obama liked and also that he does not support the EU but is looking for individual trade deals rather than with blocks.
The benefit to the UK is that circumstances have changed so dramtically in the last few days that the thought that the EU would even attempt to punish us for leaving is off the table and the end game will be a special UK deal that works for all - and drinks all round
Was wine taken?
Roger spent a long time trying to justify sexual harrassment by some favoured lefty (I forget who) on the ground that when he worked with young women they understood that wandering hands were part of the deal.
Typical cisgender behaviour
Trump got more fat women out walking in one day that Obama did in 8 years
Roger was a robust defender of Jimmy Saville - 'witnesses not credible' 'parents fault' 'they knew what they were doing'......
@stodge Yeah, I'm always gobsmacked by the idea that politics has been dominated by liberal-lefties for the last several decades. The liberal-left have got their way on certain issues like abortion, gay rights, and so on. Although many of these positions now no longer even exclusively belong to the liberal-left. Unlike in the US, many Conservatives here are pro-choice and pro gay rights. But most of the time it's the Conservatives who have been in power in this country. Thatcher, who is the single most influential British PM of the last 50 years is hardly a liberal leftie.
May does have a huge job with Trump. America First is a very difficult slogan for him to inch away from. He will have to if the UK is to get anything positive from him.
Mr. Wisemann, it's a little perplexing. Many of those who really love diversity seem to have a problem with it when it comes to political opinions. Someone disagreeing with you isn't a sign they're morally defective.
I am not immune from the odd broadside (often in my support for Theresa May) but you accept that this is part of today's social media. Tyson, bless him, had a real go recently but he apologised and I accepted and now we have respectful dialogue. That's the way it should be
Credit to PayPal they caught fraudulent purchase of a phone within an hour or so. And promptly refunded my card. Haven't been a victim of this in over a decade so a timely reminder re security.
Ms. Apocalypse, moving to the right economically is one thing. Labour also opened the migration floodgates to rub the Right's face in diversity. The PC bullshit is another reason why Rotherham took so long to be taken seriously.