Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Mr. Z, only up to the fourth series of Game of Thrones, but I think the books and TV show are quite evenly matched. Not read the book I, Claudius. Generally, I agree that books are better.
Mr. M, cheers. Belisarius was a top chap, if out-witted in court by that sly snollygoster Narses.
Miss Plato, if McCorkindale[sp] is the chap who later played a consultant in Casualty, he was either Gaius or Lucius. Tiberius was creepy as hell, but there was excellent humanisation too with his brother Drusus and his ex-wife.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Mr. Z, only up to the fourth series of Game of Thrones, but I think the books and TV show are quite evenly matched. Not read the book I, Claudius. Generally, I agree that books are better.
Mr. M, cheers. Belisarius was a top chap, if out-witted in court by that sly snollygoster Narses.
Miss Plato, if McCorkindale[sp] is the chap who later played a consultant in Casualty, he was either Gaius or Lucius. Tiberius was creepy as hell, but there was excellent humanisation too with his brother Drusus and his ex-wife.
I must dig out my boxset - haven't watched in a decade - I wore out my VHS version before. Happy memories of Sunday sofa watching.
I've been a bit surprised by the anti-Corbyn vitriol I've seen from my formerly pro-Corbyn facebook friends (I made a lot of lefty friends when going to see loads of live music when I lived in london). They're livid over his A50 position; their desperation to stay in the EU triumphs even their love for a "proper" socialist. He can probably win most of them back by not backing it in the end, or if he does manage some meaningful amendments, but I suspect that some of his most ardent supporters are lost for good
Corbyn was re elected by Labour members by a landslide even after the Brexit vote and his lacklustre support for Remain
True. Which is one measure of the scale of the task. But events ...
For all the shambles he's presided over, there hasn't been a high-profile electoral one, yet. He's consistently outperformed expectations. That's not to say he's done well: he hasn't. Net losses in local elections is a good indicator that things are far from well. But he's always surpassed minium expectations. If that changes, Corbyn will be under a lot more pressure.
As I said the fact anti Corbyn Labour candidates are standing in Copeland and Stoke makes it more difficult to blame on Corbyn
It does. On the other hand, the previous candidates were anti-Corbyn too, so what's the factor that's changed?
Of course, you're right: that logic won't necessarily permeate through to those who are willfully blind to it. But the longer that underperformance goes on, the harder it is to excuse every failure away.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Miss Plato, personally, Livia was my favourite, but Caligula and Augustus were both excellent as well. Absolutely fantastic cast in I, Claudius.
Mr. M, is Count Belisarius history or fiction? I'm familiar with Belisarius' doings, of course (from Gibbon, Norwich and Procopius, although I suspect the latter might be just a shade negative).
Agree on Livia - which Graves admitted was a complete fiction and gross traducement of a perfectly respectable and wise Roman matron.
Remember one scene when she's woken in the middle of the night to be told someone's vomit has turned green. "Never done that before" she says to herself, puzzled, then recovering "Perhaps it's a good sign". Then when she confesses to murdering Augustus "In the end he'd only eat figs from the tree. So I had to smear them all with poison. I was up all night"
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
It occurs to me how many (probably most) of the people who are in meltdown over May going to meet Trump also belong to the Eurofanatical, left-liberal, Merkel worship cult.
They must be hoping desperately that Macron wins the French presidency. Otherwise, watching these self-same people trying to make excuses for Mutti making eyes and holding hands with either Francois Fillon (hard right, pseudo-Thatcherite, corrupt and pro-Putin) or Marine Le Pen (far right, Europhobic, pro-Brexit and pro-Putin) - which she will - is going to be excruciating for them. And excruciatingly funny for many others.
I think you are in danger of equating "most Trump supporters are Eurosceptics" with "most Eurosceptics are Trump supporters"
I seek to advocate neither proposition (although there is probably some merit to the former, and very little to the latter.) I merely seek to make quite a narrow point in relation specifically to the opposition to this particular meeting.
Put crudely, the approach from the right-leaning press - once you strip out the more hysterical paeans of praise - is one of realpolitik. Trump is the President, May needs to deal with him, so she is - and is, thus far, doing well under the circumstances. The approach from the left-leaning press is mostly a combination of cringing embarrassment, wounded posturing, the usual "Isn't Britain pathetic and awful?" funereal dirges, and downright outrage.
I am just looking forward to seeing how the self-same people who are screaming about May daring to visit Trump will confect to portray a summit of e.g. Fillon and Merkel - in hushed tones of reverence and fawning praise - as a display of centrist moderation, consensus and unity. That's all.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
Mr. Rook, saw the Sky paper review last night and the leftwing woman on it suggested May shouldn't've gone and should instead have played a game of 'wait and see'. What does that even mean? Wait to see whether Trump resigns? Refuse to meet the leader of probably our closest ally?
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
I see the latest regeneration of the PB Tories has reached full, fawning coalescence.
The creatures outside looked from Trumper to Mayette, and from Mayette to Brexiteer, and from Brexiteer to Unionist; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I don't see that at all, I am seeing acceptance of the fact that Trump is POTUS. I don't like his manners, morals or appearance any more than you do, but we must focus on the essentials. I was thinking that it is a shame that counterfactuals are untestable, because although it is clearly true that Ed Miliband PM or David Cameron PM would have behaved no differently than May (adjusting the handholding a bit for gender reasons), it cannot be proved. But of course there is a delicious real-world test case available: so lets' wait and see whether Nicola declines or postpones her first invitation from the D.
May went to meet with the office of President of the United States, not the hugely flawed specimen whom America has decided currently holds that office. To put the US in the deep freeze until it elects someone more to Twitter's liking might be the madness of Momentum, but not of the Conservative Party. Her visit has already allowed "clarifications" on things such as torture. Her meeting with Trump has the scope to allow Trump to be gently mellowed, a process for which many Americans would readily thank her - and not just those who voted Democrat.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Mr. Rook, saw the Sky paper review last night and the leftwing woman on it suggested May shouldn't've gone and should instead have played a game of 'wait and see'. What does that even mean? Wait to see whether Trump resigns? Refuse to meet the leader of probably our closest ally?
It's daft.
Rachel Shabi to put it mildly comes over as a ranting leftie, which she is. She has suddenly appeared to be one of the select few who are put up for comment but is just so part of the Metropolitan left elite most voters roll their eyes or switch off
If I complained about Obama the way people are complaining about Trump, they’d say I was a racist.
There's a CSPAN video of Sen Obama advocating spending on building a wall re immigration floating about on Twitter today. There are others of Bill Clinton doing the same.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
We do live in very uncertain times, and who knows how this is all going to turn out? That much said,
(1) I don't think that May's visit will look bad to most people, insofar as they will have seen report of it on the ten o'clock news bulletins. Why should our Prime Minister not go to talk with the American President? (2) I've not a clue what state the EU will be in in three years' time, but the chances of everything being sweetness and light seem remote. The fundamental structural defects in the Eurozone remain and there appears to be no willingness at all to correct them. (3) Theresa May is positively relying upon good relations with Congress. Her speech in Philadelphia was made to Republican legislators, and was intended primarily to please them, not Trump. (4) The UK is not friendless outside of the EU. We're presumably not going to be as closely integrated politically with any other nation or group of nations as we were with the EU - but that's rather the point of having left in the first place.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
You do know his rating has jumped to 59% the same as Obama in the same poll after his election
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
I'm sure you're being tongue-in-cheek, but I'm far more aware of the UK since leaving London. I live in Dorset and spend a fair amount of time travelling to and visiting provincial towns and cities in England, Wales and Scotland. One half of my family is very poor, and my industry includes a large variety of people from various backgrounds. I also don't drive. Which means I spend a good deal of time on trains. Having a shop means I speak to 10-15 strangers a day, which is also very insightful.
Most people wouldn't class me as a man of the people, nor would I, but I encounter far more of the people than most city dwellers.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Would love to see some polling on Rejoining - including adopting the Euro, Schengen, European Army. That would clarify just how small that pool is.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Hence the fact that Ukip are floating around 13% in the polls, and the Lib Dems on around 10%. The total percentage of the electorate that is really passionate about the EU is modest, and of those more loathe it than love it: as two opposing single-issue parties, Ukip ought to outpoll Anti-Ukip.
The remainder of the electorate in the middle are less committed, although in general there's no great love for the EU or yearning to embrace European identity. Hence the fact that, once we are out of the EU, we're highly unlikely to want to go back into it in anything other than the very distant future. Assuming that the EU even lasts that long.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that the EU will simply collapse and go away is looking pretty unsupported by the facts too. So in three years time, with Trump checkmated by Congress and the EU past the worst, the Hard Brexit policy could well be going to look like a dogs breakfast for a friendless UK.
We do live in very uncertain times, and who knows how this is all going to turn out? That much said,
(1) I don't think that May's visit will look bad to most people, insofar as they will have seen report of it on the ten o'clock news bulletins. Why should our Prime Minister not go to talk with the American President? (2) I've not a clue what state the EU will be in in three years' time, but the chances of everything being sweetness and light seem remote. The fundamental structural defects in the Eurozone remain and there appears to be no willingness at all to correct them. (3) Theresa May is positively relying upon good relations with Congress. Her speech in Philadelphia was made to Republican legislators, and was intended primarily to please them, not Trump. (4) The UK is not friendless outside of the EU. We're presumably not going to be as closely integrated politically with any other nation or group of nations as we were with the EU - but that's rather the point of having left in the first place.
1) I look forward to the collapse in May's best PM ratings. 2) In three years they will have to find an extra €10billion a year. I'm guessing that won't be easy. 3) Exactly- they have already come out on May's side on torture. 4) The NATO comments will not have gone unnoticed in the former Eastern Bloc.
Miss Plato, personally, Livia was my favourite, but Caligula and Augustus were both excellent as well. Absolutely fantastic cast in I, Claudius.
Mr. M, is Count Belisarius history or fiction? I'm familiar with Belisarius' doings, of course (from Gibbon, Norwich and Procopius, although I suspect the latter might be just a shade negative).
Livia has some great lines. "You don't care if he lives or dies." "On the contrary, I care very much whether he lives or dies".
"I was up all night poisoning the figs in the garden."
"You're so good to me.". "Goodness has nothing to do with it."
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
I think that's unfair on Harris. He did a lot of legwork during the election and referendum, visiting areas that the London centric media didn't even knew existed.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
I see a failure of imagination here across the board as to how radical change could emerge in the UK.
To be honest I think the Cheerleaders for May have got it stunningly wrong. Trump is the most unpopular President in America since these things started to be recorded. In the UK he is more or less despised across the political spectrum. May's hurried and supplicatory visit looks awful. Meanwhile the unspoken assumption that
Keir Starmer is the only grown up on the Labour front bench at the moment, and even he is making significant mistakes... More important than whether Labour hold the by-election seats is what happens in the locals in May. The big news may not be a Labour rout but the return of the Lib Dems. Then the political momentum could turn strongly into a Remain/Return narrative.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Would love to see some polling on Rejoining - including adopting the Euro, Schengen, European Army. That would clarify just how small that pool is.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
The Lib Dems will never be a contender to win a general election. They can afford to appeal to niche voters, rather than majorities.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
I think that's unfair on Harris. He did a lot of legwork during the election and referendum, visiting areas that the London centric media didn't even knew existed.
I intended no slight to Harris. I agree, he's very good, and as close as you can get to an objective reporter in these debased times.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Would love to see some polling on Rejoining - including adopting the Euro, Schengen, European Army. That would clarify just how small that pool is.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
People are delusional to their own obsessions until it is too late.
Even after triggering Article 50 there will still be many who view it as preventing leaving rather than rejoining and damn the legalities. Only once we have actually left will it be a case of rejoining and only too late then will they realise how hollow the whole remain->rejoin cause is.
Still for a party of protest it can work and the Lib Dems are not any more than that. They are not a potential party of government and not aspiring to be.
Is this thread the final death of remoanerism? The torrent of flagrantly contradictory arguments desperately hoping something will stick is pitiable. First of all May was going to be ignored in favour of Merkel/EU, then she was going to go and suck up, then we were going to get no trade deal, then we were going to be locked into a nightmarish US trade deal (never mind that was on the table within the EU), now we're 'too dependent' on the US, a US supplicant (where have all the people complaining about this been for the past 50 years?), and it's all a disaster because hands were held going down some stairs. Eaten up inside that this visit has actually gone rather well.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
I'm sure you're being tongue-in-cheek, but I'm far more aware of the UK since leaving London. I live in Dorset and spend a fair amount of time travelling to and visiting provincial towns and cities in England, Wales and Scotland. One half of my family is very poor, and my industry includes a large variety of people from various backgrounds. I also don't drive. Which means I spend a good deal of time on trains. Having a shop means I speak to 10-15 strangers a day, which is also very insightful.
Most people wouldn't class me as a man of the people, nor would I, but I encounter far more of the people than most city dwellers.
"I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people." - Senator Gracchus, "Gladiator"
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Hence the fact that Ukip are floating around 13% in the polls, and the Lib Dems on around 10%. The total percentage of the electorate that is really passionate about the EU is modest, and of those more loathe it than love it: as two opposing single-issue parties, Ukip ought to outpoll Anti-Ukip.
The remainder of the electorate in the middle are less committed, although in general there's no great love for the EU or yearning to embrace European identity. Hence the fact that, once we are out of the EU, we're highly unlikely to want to go back into it in anything other than the very distant future. Assuming that the EU even lasts that long.
Those who loathe it exceed those who love it because we are still currently members.
Once we are not members anymore those who loathe it and care enough about it to vote that way will quickly dwindle to roughly 0%. It will be about as politically relevant as hating the French (individually) or the Americans. The Lib Dems may be capped, but UKIP need to find another raison d'etre or die.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Judging on how many times you mention it, you seem to be in constant touch with the 'common ground of this country'. A veritable PB John Harris.
I think that's unfair on Harris. He did a lot of legwork during the election and referendum, visiting areas that the London centric media didn't even knew existed.
Harris had his on the pulse many times - we disagree on much, but he did what 99% of other Lefties didn't re the EU Ref - he also saw the SLAB apocalypse coming. He actually bothered to get engaged and off his arse.
I wish I could fnd the WaPo article where the 'journalist' confessed to knowing no-one who knew a Trump supporter, and then wrote a lengthy column rebutting his own made-up Trump supporter quotes. I was astonished - he didn't think this was stupid at all.
He could've just got a bus to anywhere outside the metropolis - but didn't bother. Said it all.
Lefties on PB frothing that the photo will come back to damage May at some far off point in the future are simply demonstrating how far out of touch they are with what is important to the public.
Would love to see some polling on Rejoining - including adopting the Euro, Schengen, European Army. That would clarify just how small that pool is.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
Continuity Remain is arguably a good strategy for the Lib Dems, in terms of trying to raise their public profile as a minor party, and trying to get a handful of very Europhile constituencies back at the next election. But its appeal is limited and liable to fade after we actually leave the EU, as you correctly point out.
They may, of course, be hoping that Brexit goes really badly so that they can try to win extra converts by saying "We told you so," but that's a questionable tactic at best. Arguably, being on the right side of history over Iraq was of little or no use to them after 2005.
If they want to get anywhere in the long run, the Lib Dems are going to need some new tunes, and a generous helping of luck.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
I suspect Donald knew exactly what he was doing and was taking the proverbial p*ss. Nigel would have briefed him that we're desperate for him to be our patron, so he's blazoned this reality in the best way he knows: through near sexual symbolism. Donald will be loving every moment of his presidency, though where this leaves Theresa is another matter.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
Despite some very nifty footwork by Theresa May a defeat was always the most likely result. The 'hand of God' which did for England all those years ago has just done it again. The Europeans kept their distance and their dignity. We didn't. Being photographed hand in hand was the moment the world cringed. Here we were friendless clinging on for dear life to a President with the international respect of a dung beetle.
No. Having a positive relationship with the moat powerful man in the world is far more important than aligning with EU PC views
We established on here last night that this wasn't the objection of Continuity Remain.
Their objection was that we'd voted for Brexit.
Are you comfortable with just how reliant Britain currently is on Donald Trump?
I'm deeply uncomfortable with how reliant you would make Britain on a bunch of socialist anti-democratic apparatchiks in Brussels.
When you can answer the question I posed without evasion and deflection with untruths, feel free to contribute further.
I'm comfortable with us being somewhat reliant on Trump. We both need a trade deal. He is a genuine Anglophile (very much unlike Obama). We are suffering a mild dose of Trump derangement syndrome here in the UK. Having a good relationship with him and with the US will be good for the UK. I wish him and Mrs May well.
Were does this notion of Trump being an anglophile come from? Apart from his efforts to trample on the planning regulations in Scotland, I can't see much connection to this country at all.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom holding hands with the President of the United States of America picture will sway even fewer votes than posh Tory leader in Bullingdon Club garb did.
It will confirm the prejudices of those who'd never vote that way anyway but won't bother any swing voters.
There wasn't a whole lot of coverage on the UK visit to the US in the Philippines, so what I got was from the Times. They seemed mostly positive. I see there is some twatter rubbish about handholding, trivialities of twatterers I guess.
Lefties on PB frothing that the photo will come back to damage May at some far off point in the future are simply demonstrating how far out of touch they are with what is important to the public.
Lefties - check frothing - check out of touch - check important to the public - check
Disappointing, you could easily have squeezed a 'snowflake' in there.
Overall the visit has surely got to be seen as a success, no gaffes, Trump seemingly stepping back from dropping sanctions on Russia, Congress backing the British stance on waterboarding and some kind of commitment from the US over NATO.
Didn't see a whole lot on the purported trade deal with the US which is worrying, but that might just be sensible precaution.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Lefties on PB frothing that the photo will come back to damage May at some far off point in the future are simply demonstrating how far out of touch they are with what is important to the public.
Lefties - check frothing - check out of touch - check important to the public - check
Disappointing, you could easily have squeezed a 'snowflake' in there.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Blair is hated for his own actions not Bush's actions. The fact they are one and the same is neither here nor there.
Unless May starts building walls and banning religions herself it isn't comparable.
Lefties on PB frothing that the photo will come back to damage May at some far off point in the future are simply demonstrating how far out of touch they are with what is important to the public.
What is important to the public is a good economy and improving living standards. If Mrs May delivers those she'll be fine. If she doesn't other stuff comes into play.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Blair is hated for his own actions not Bush's actions. The fact they are one and the same is neither here nor there.
Unless May starts building walls and banning religions herself it isn't comparable.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
I guess that depends on what Trump does that May is seen to be tied in with. I agree that the handholding photo is an awkward one, but unless May does a Blair and goes all poodle with Trump, she should be ok.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Blair is hated for his own actions not Bush's actions. The fact they are one and the same is neither here nor there.
Unless May starts building walls and banning religions herself it isn't comparable.
I think you may be misremembering. Yo Blair.
I don't recall anyone ever saying to me that they wouldn't vote Labour because "Yo Blair".
I do remember people saying that they wouldn't vote Labour because Blair "took us into an illegal war" etc - even then he still won a landslide election as the opposition was considered unelectable despite being nothing like today's shower of an opposition.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
Going back in would be a national humiliation. Once we're out, we're out.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
Don't underestimate the huge backlash when people realise that more Italian restaurants in London might have to close.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
Going back in would be a national humiliation. Once we're out, we're out.
Lefties on PB frothing that the photo will come back to damage May at some far off point in the future are simply demonstrating how far out of touch they are with what is important to the public.
Reverse Alf Garnetts... it's the same thought process that racists have... start off thinking every person who isn't the same colour as them is suspicious, and judge everything they do through that prism
Nothing May could have done would have pleased them. If she said "Fuck Off Mr President" they'd say she was pissing off an important ally
They didn't stand close enough.. "I'm no body language expert..#frosty" He took her hand down some stairs "Oooh a bit much!"
Painful... Like David Brent when Neil made cakes in The Office
Those who loathe it exceed those who love it because we are still currently members.
Once we are not members anymore those who loathe it and care enough about it to vote that way will quickly dwindle to roughly 0%. It will be about as politically relevant as hating the French (individually) or the Americans. The Lib Dems may be capped, but UKIP need to find another raison d'etre or die.
It's difficult to foresee the future of either Ukip or Anti-Ukip post Brexit, beyond the fact that the 8% the Lib Dems won at the last general election is probably their floor. They are proven survivors, and appear to have a core vote; Ukip *might* also possess a durable core vote by now, but where exactly their floor is remains to be seen. All that I would say is that they're still polling around the same level that they achieved in the last election, despite the Leave result in the referendum and the disorganisation and leadership debacles afflicting the party. So maybe they are going to turn out to be a fixed feature of the political landscape as well, appealing - broadly speaking - to a minority of voters who are the polar opposite (not just on Europe, but on most political issues) of those most attracted to the Lib Dems, and amassing similar numbers of votes accordingly?
All of this is very much wrapped up with the question of the future of Labour. Looking specifically at England, which elects 82% of the Commons, the absolute floor for the Tories is a third of the vote (they managed about 33.7% in the 1997 rout); the ceiling is harder to read but could be anywhere between 45% and 50%. The remainder of the votes will go elsewhere - but how many of these will continue to be gathered by Labour; whether Labour will stay in one piece or fragment; and where the voters lost by Labour are most likely to go are all matters very much open to question. If Labour does go into terminal decline, or even fall apart, then a complete re-ordering of the political landscape would necessarily follow.
Basically, I'm as sure as I can be that the Tories and the Greens will still be around in ten years' time, but as to the rest of them anything could happen.
Been a while since I have commented, though I do still lurk.
People are pretty dismissive of Corbyn, but they do not love Mrs May either. So it seems to me that we could absolutely see the long heralded political realignment actually happen. Those who laughed at the surge for Nick Clegg in 2010 - especially when it didn't happen-may find that Farron goes on to higher things- the electorate are pretty volatile and increasingly pissed off- the Lib Dems are getting points even among soft leavers for sticking to their European guns, and if May's gamble on Trumpistan turns out to be a failure, then vast change could happen very quickly.
The Lib Dems unwavering pro-European stanch has all the possibility of leaping them forward to [re-]claim the protest vote mantle that was held by UKIP.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
Would love to see some polling on Rejoining - including adopting the Euro, Schengen, European Army. That would clarify just how small that pool is.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
The Lib Dems will never be a contender to win a general election. They can afford to appeal to niche voters, rather than majorities.
Gladstonian liberals were clear and open about supporting free markets; fair competition; free trade; and small government. Until the Lib Dems return to being economic liberals as well as social liberals they will not replace Labour or even UKIP.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
It all depends on which 'we' we're talking about. The glaring flaw in May's paean to the nation state in her address to the Republican retreat is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not the most coherent example of the genre.
Her meeting with Trump has the scope to allow Trump to be gently mellowed, a process for which many Americans would readily thank her - and not just those who voted Democrat.
Yes, the executive order he signed as soon as she was in the air is really fcking mellow...
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
Overall the visit has surely got to be seen as a success, no gaffes, Trump seemingly stepping back from dropping sanctions on Russia, Congress backing the British stance on waterboarding and some kind of commitment from the US over NATO.
Didn't see a whole lot on the purported trade deal with the US which is worrying, but that might just be sensible precaution.
What is the PB consensus?
I think that's right.
The issue regarding a trade deal is that Donald Trump will say "Yes! We need to have a trade deal", and then every Congressman will seek special protections for an industry in his district, and every Senator will be lobbied by a few special interests. And Hollywood and the entertainment industry will complain that UK intellectual property laws aren't as insane stringent as in the US, and that we need to bring them into line (as happened with TPP), and it gets stuck. Ultimately, Congress has to pass it. And trade deals bring diffuse gains and a few very sore losers.
Donald Trump has a window right now, while he controls both Houses, to get something moving. But I suspect he'll find himself bogged down because Congressman X has business Y, who donated $1m to his campaign, and who would cut his own arm off unless there's a special exemption regarding something.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Agreed with all of that, except if there are any parts of the stockbroker belt where people love the EU, where are they? There weren't many Remain posters in places like Cobham.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
I know quite a few fervent believers in the European ideal. They're all people in their early to mid 20s who studied abroad at some point, and have more European friends than British ones.
It's a sensible strategy to boost their support from 8%, but it's still a smaller pool than UKIP were fishing in.
I would have thought that there will be winners and losers from Brexit, and the LDs can appeal to those who ideologically love the EU (maybe 10% of the UK, but a higher proportion on this board), and those who feel they've lost out from exit (perhaps a further 10-20%).
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
I don't know anyone who loves the EU. I know quite a few people who believe that we have a better chance of preserving the UK, securing economic success and sustained improvements in living standards inside the single market than outside it. I suspect that's probably why most Remainers voted how they did.
Agreed. How many of them will be keen to rejoin the Single Market once we are out?
Going back in would be a national humiliation. Once we're out, we're out.
Very likely we would be vetoed if we applied. Our boats have been burned. EEA/EFTA may be possible though.
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
Labour currently only represents the Metropolitian left elite so despised by it's former voters
The conservative party has one big usp - it wants power
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Agreed with all of that, except if there are any EU-loving parts of the stockbroker belt where people love the EU they must be very small. There weren't many Remain posters in places like Cobham.
Do any stockbrokers live in Cobham? Do stockbrokers in the old sense really exist anymore?
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
What are you smoking?
Shut up, dear old thing. I'm enjoying a nostalgic trip back to the days of class war. Mind you, slightly perturbed that the plan to pump VX into Lidl has leaked. Do you think we have a mole in the party?
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
What are you smoking?
It's evidently very good! Can I have some?
As long as the left are deluded about Tory "class hatred" (from the safe, if expensive sanctuary of north London) they will continue to lose....
Overall the visit has surely got to be seen as a success, no gaffes, Trump seemingly stepping back from dropping sanctions on Russia, Congress backing the British stance on waterboarding and some kind of commitment from the US over NATO.
Didn't see a whole lot on the purported trade deal with the US which is worrying, but that might just be sensible precaution.
What is the PB consensus?
I think that's right.
The issue regarding a trade deal is that Donald Trump will say "Yes! We need to have a trade deal", and then every Congressman will seek special protections for an industry in his district, and every Senator will be lobbied by a few special interests. And Hollywood and the entertainment industry will complain that UK intellectual property laws aren't as insane stringent as in the US, and that we need to bring them into line (as happened with TPP), and it gets stuck. Ultimately, Congress has to pass it. And trade deals bring diffuse gains and a few very sore losers.
Donald Trump has a window right now, while he controls both Houses, to get something moving. But I suspect he'll find himself bogged down because Congressman X has business Y, who donated $1m to his campaign, and who would cut his own arm off unless there's a special exemption regarding something.
Agreed. I think a trade deal with the US should probably just stick to services and a mutual dropping of tariffs between the UK and US. Both sides would probably live with that arrangement for a long time. There would still be loads of NTBs but I think neither side will want to give up too much.
The other proposal I read a few months ago was "AFTA" which was the Anglo Free Trade Association between the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. Essentially kicking Mexico out of NAFTA and inviting the UK, Australia and NZ to participate. I'm not sure how easily that could be sold to Parliament though.
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
Cameron shook hands with King Abdullah Brown shook hands with Putin Blair shook hands with Gaddafi Jack Straw shook hands with Robert Mugabe May shook hands with Trump
Which one of those foreign leaders killed the fewest?
Trump is a first class bell-end but making a fuss over a handshake won't make the slightest dent outside of those who obsess about politics.
Holding hands is not shaking hands. I feel sorry for May on this. Trump reached out, she could not ignore him. But people will forget that. All they will see is the photo. She is now hand in hand with him. And the fawning headlines in the Tory press don't help.
Good grief.
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
May is tied to Trump now, just as Blair was tied to Bush. That relationship was also popular for a while. Then it wasn't. We'll see how this one pans out.
Blair is hated for his own actions not Bush's actions. The fact they are one and the same is neither here nor there.
Unless May starts building walls and banning religions herself it isn't comparable.
I have just consulted a sample of one (me), and I can assure you I am very happy to hate Blair both for his own actions as his own actions and as corollaries to his poodle-to-bush status.
I know quite a few fervent believers in the European ideal. They're all people in their early to mid 20s who studied abroad at some point, and have more European friends than British ones.
Does the fact that the British in this demographic find the European ideal as attractive as any other Europeans in any way challenge your belief that there is something inherently incompatible about the UK in the EU? In other words do you think they are simply wrong about their own identity and suffering from some kind of delusion because of their personal experiences?
I don't know anyone, outside of here who loves the EU. I know people who don't think it's a bad idea, or that, on balance, we're probably better off in it. But never love.
In Inner London, university cities, centres of government like Cardiff and Edinburgh, parts of the Stockbroker Belt, there are people who love the EU. And, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Nationalist take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Agreed with all of that, except if there are any EU-loving parts of the stockbroker belt where people love the EU they must be very small. There weren't many Remain posters in places like Cobham.
Do any stockbrokers live in Cobham? Do stockbrokers in the old sense really exist anymore?
Cobham is exclusively F1 drivers and stockbrokers.
Stockbrokers still exist in the old sense although they may call themselves private bankers nowadays.
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
You really don't understand Conservatism, do you.
Indeed, as a fairly working class Tory member I've never experienced what he describes the party as. In fact I've been asked to run as a councillor many times, I'm guessing either despite my modest background or maybe because of it.
What I find is that the Tories like people who grab opportunities and loathe people who blame others for their own failures.
Yes, Labour looks in a very bad state and at present they seem unelectable. But if we can imagine putting the Tories, as they are now, into opposition, and leaving everything else equal (bear with me!), then exactly the same could be said about them! Does anyone disagree?
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
Paragraph ends with a question to which the answer is no, and then it really goes down the rabbit hole.
Comments
Mr. M, cheers. Belisarius was a top chap, if out-witted in court by that sly snollygoster Narses.
Miss Plato, if McCorkindale[sp] is the chap who later played a consultant in Casualty, he was either Gaius or Lucius. Tiberius was creepy as hell, but there was excellent humanisation too with his brother Drusus and his ex-wife.
Of course, you're right: that logic won't necessarily permeate through to those who are willfully blind to it. But the longer that underperformance goes on, the harder it is to excuse every failure away.
Remember one scene when she's woken in the middle of the night to be told someone's vomit has turned green. "Never done that before" she says to herself, puzzled, then recovering "Perhaps it's a good sign". Then when she confesses to murdering Augustus "In the end he'd only eat figs from the tree. So I had to smear them all with poison. I was up all night"
Outside of the liberal hand-wringing bubble, the world goes on.
People who don't like May, Brexit or Trump will point to it as an issue (as various Violet Elizabeth Botts have done on here), meanwhile the common ground of this country will be pleased to see our PM was the first visitor to the new POTUS.
Put crudely, the approach from the right-leaning press - once you strip out the more hysterical paeans of praise - is one of realpolitik. Trump is the President, May needs to deal with him, so she is - and is, thus far, doing well under the circumstances. The approach from the left-leaning press is mostly a combination of cringing embarrassment, wounded posturing, the usual "Isn't Britain pathetic and awful?" funereal dirges, and downright outrage.
I am just looking forward to seeing how the self-same people who are screaming about May daring to visit Trump will confect to portray a summit of e.g. Fillon and Merkel - in hushed tones of reverence and fawning praise - as a display of centrist moderation, consensus and unity. That's all.
It's daft.
By being stubbornly against the government and the new status quo the Lib Dems can harvest protest votes galore but for mainstream people revisiting the European question any time soon (especially once it is returning when actually out rather than just preventing leaving) is going to look as odd an obsession as UKIP looked for a long time.
If the Lib Dems can exert enough pressure on a mainstream party to have a return referendum if it becomes popular enough then that may happen eventually.
I find it all very amusing.
(1) I don't think that May's visit will look bad to most people, insofar as they will have seen report of it on the ten o'clock news bulletins. Why should our Prime Minister not go to talk with the American President?
(2) I've not a clue what state the EU will be in in three years' time, but the chances of everything being sweetness and light seem remote. The fundamental structural defects in the Eurozone remain and there appears to be no willingness at all to correct them.
(3) Theresa May is positively relying upon good relations with Congress. Her speech in Philadelphia was made to Republican legislators, and was intended primarily to please them, not Trump.
(4) The UK is not friendless outside of the EU. We're presumably not going to be as closely integrated politically with any other nation or group of nations as we were with the EU - but that's rather the point of having left in the first place.
Anyway, must be off.
Most people wouldn't class me as a man of the people, nor would I, but I encounter far more of the people than most city dwellers.
I think it is a strategic blunder by the LibDems. Once Article 50 is triggered, the appeal of Rejoining will whither to irrelevance.
The remainder of the electorate in the middle are less committed, although in general there's no great love for the EU or yearning to embrace European identity. Hence the fact that, once we are out of the EU, we're highly unlikely to want to go back into it in anything other than the very distant future. Assuming that the EU even lasts that long.
2) In three years they will have to find an extra €10billion a year. I'm guessing that won't be easy.
3) Exactly- they have already come out on May's side on torture.
4) The NATO comments will not have gone unnoticed in the former Eastern Bloc.
"I was up all night poisoning the figs in the garden."
"You're so good to me.". "Goodness has nothing to do with it."
There's another thing here about their strategy which is 'smart' (in that it will appeal to a subset of voters): anyone who loses their job in the next few years - irrespective of the real reason - will blame Brexit, because there will be a political party telling them that was the reason, and people love to be told it's not your fault.
Even after triggering Article 50 there will still be many who view it as preventing leaving rather than rejoining and damn the legalities. Only once we have actually left will it be a case of rejoining and only too late then will they realise how hollow the whole remain->rejoin cause is.
Still for a party of protest it can work and the Lib Dems are not any more than that. They are not a potential party of government and not aspiring to be.
- Senator Gracchus, "Gladiator"
Once we are not members anymore those who loathe it and care enough about it to vote that way will quickly dwindle to roughly 0%. It will be about as politically relevant as hating the French (individually) or the Americans. The Lib Dems may be capped, but UKIP need to find another raison d'etre or die.
I wish I could fnd the WaPo article where the 'journalist' confessed to knowing no-one who knew a Trump supporter, and then wrote a lengthy column rebutting his own made-up Trump supporter quotes. I was astonished - he didn't think this was stupid at all.
He could've just got a bus to anywhere outside the metropolis - but didn't bother. Said it all.
They may, of course, be hoping that Brexit goes really badly so that they can try to win extra converts by saying "We told you so," but that's a questionable tactic at best. Arguably, being on the right side of history over Iraq was of little or no use to them after 2005.
If they want to get anywhere in the long run, the Lib Dems are going to need some new tunes, and a generous helping of luck.
It will confirm the prejudices of those who'd never vote that way anyway but won't bother any swing voters.
frothing - check
out of touch - check
important to the public - check
Disappointing, you could easily have squeezed a 'snowflake' in there.
This thread is pure and sheer joy. https://t.co/yQpe8KCqmQ
Astro Upulie
I wish to present a series called "female scientist stock photo"
Didn't see a whole lot on the purported trade deal with the US which is worrying, but that might just be sensible precaution.
What is the PB consensus?
In the rest of the country, you'd be hard put to find anyone who loves the EU. 10% overall is probably a fair estimate.
Unless May starts building walls and banning religions herself it isn't comparable.
Mr Submarine,
"Now she holds the hand that grabbed the pussy."
Now let me see ... Nixon went to China, Blair supped with Ghadafi, The Queen shook hands with McGuinness ... That is statesmanlike.
But Trump is obviously far worse than those. Who does he rank with then? Hitler? Stalin?
A touch of hyperbole, perhaps?'
And Clinton getting an intern young enough to be his daughter to give him a blow job in the Oval office was absolutely fine with lefties.
I do remember people saying that they wouldn't vote Labour because Blair "took us into an illegal war" etc - even then he still won a landslide election as the opposition was considered unelectable despite being nothing like today's shower of an opposition.
Nothing May could have done would have pleased them. If she said "Fuck Off Mr President" they'd say she was pissing off an important ally
They didn't stand close enough.. "I'm no body language expert..#frosty"
He took her hand down some stairs "Oooh a bit much!"
Painful... Like David Brent when Neil made cakes in The Office
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtWuiHyeG3I
https://twitter.com/Queen_Europe/status/825306104645222400
All of this is very much wrapped up with the question of the future of Labour. Looking specifically at England, which elects 82% of the Commons, the absolute floor for the Tories is a third of the vote (they managed about 33.7% in the 1997 rout); the ceiling is harder to read but could be anywhere between 45% and 50%. The remainder of the votes will go elsewhere - but how many of these will continue to be gathered by Labour; whether Labour will stay in one piece or fragment; and where the voters lost by Labour are most likely to go are all matters very much open to question. If Labour does go into terminal decline, or even fall apart, then a complete re-ordering of the political landscape would necessarily follow.
Basically, I'm as sure as I can be that the Tories and the Greens will still be around in ten years' time, but as to the rest of them anything could happen.
The Tories are deeply divided, putting on a show of unity, a lot of their voters and members and some of their leaders have a lot of respect for another party, and their leader seems to be sailing by the seat of her pants, spouting slogans such as "Red White and Blue Brexit" and "Britain and the US Will Lead the World Again" - in the absence of any clear policy on who on earth they want this country to throw in its lot with.
The Tories' strength is that however much they hate each other they are united by class hatred, which is a large part of what their class identity rests on, and even when they are knifing each other in the back, which they so dearly enjoy, they retain a degree of unity that the leadership of the Labour party doesn't.
I mean who does the Labour party represent? You could say the working class, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, do they? Social workers? Maybe all the administrators in the country who didn't go to private school and who would feel bad about poison-gassing the council estates.
The issue regarding a trade deal is that Donald Trump will say "Yes! We need to have a trade deal", and then every Congressman will seek special protections for an industry in his district, and every Senator will be lobbied by a few special interests. And Hollywood and the entertainment industry will complain that UK intellectual property laws aren't as insane stringent as in the US, and that we need to bring them into line (as happened with TPP), and it gets stuck. Ultimately, Congress has to pass it. And trade deals bring diffuse gains and a few very sore losers.
Donald Trump has a window right now, while he controls both Houses, to get something moving. But I suspect he'll find himself bogged down because Congressman X has business Y, who donated $1m to his campaign, and who would cut his own arm off unless there's a special exemption regarding something.
The conservative party has one big usp - it wants power
As long as the left are deluded about Tory "class hatred" (from the safe, if expensive sanctuary of north London) they will continue to lose....
The other proposal I read a few months ago was "AFTA" which was the Anglo Free Trade Association between the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. Essentially kicking Mexico out of NAFTA and inviting the UK, Australia and NZ to participate. I'm not sure how easily that could be sold to Parliament though.
Stockbrokers still exist in the old sense although they may call themselves private bankers nowadays.
What I find is that the Tories like people who grab opportunities and loathe people who blame others for their own failures.
Last line, can we frame that one for posterity?