"US President Donald Trump has defended Vladimir Putin when questioned over allegations of murders carried out by the Russian state. In an interview with Fox News, he said: "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?""
"US President Donald Trump has defended Vladimir Putin when questioned over allegations of murders carried out by the Russian state. In an interview with Fox News, he said: "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?""
The PM, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and other prominent Tory Remainers spent six years helping to create the environment in which Leave lies about hordes of Turks coming over to live here seemed credible. If you hear your country's leaders continually talk about immigration as a problem, the EU as the enemy and so on, you can't be blamed for believing them. Most voters listen only sporadically to political debate. David Cameron and George Osborne suddenly becoming champions of an institution they had previously derided must have seemed extraordinary and very dishonest to many, many people. The leaders of the Leave campaign knew they were lying (just as the leaders of Remain did, too), but you can't blame voters for believing them.
Of course in your strange world the mere voter is no where near bright enough to actually make up their own minds about such issues and can only possibly have reached their decisions because they were lied to by their betters.
It is no wonder you and your kind lost. The scorn and distaste you display every day for the average member of the public is quite nauseating.
No, Richard - I have scorn for people who lie to the electorate knowing most people's lives do not revolve around politics. I do not consider people who lie to be better than anyone. Presumably, you must think most people believe man made global warming is real and is a significant danger because they have looked at all the evidence and believe that to be the case. If not, if you believe they have been duped, you are a hypocrite.
Seeking to paint me as part of a kind, an other, an enemy, merely because I do not hold the views you do is quite nauseating. And rather hysterical. Go and have a lie down.
If you think of the degree of burdensome European legislation/directives/regulations that has been gold plated in Westminster without even a whisper of 'Brussels', you must surely see that the opposite situation is true. Uk politicians could have whipped the public up against the EU a million times. They chose not to.
Wait.
If the UK politicians are responsible for gold plating, why on earth would they blame the EU? That makes no logical sense.
My contention is that they haven't blamed it, rather they've protected it.
"US President Donald Trump has defended Vladimir Putin when questioned over allegations of murders carried out by the Russian state. In an interview with Fox News, he said: "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?""
Interesting interview in the Guardian with Ken Clarke. I picked up a couple of points: That Brexit will make us collectively poorer isn't acknowledged often enough. Something to bear in mind when people go on pompously about nationhood. That Theresa May, God help us, is the best hope we have for an orderly future, so we need to support her.
If Brexit were cost free we wouldn't have needed a debate or a referendum.
As in almost every other single thing he has ever said related to Europe, Clarke is of course wrong. There will clearly be ups and downs, positives and negatives about Brexit, but collectively we will be far better off.
"US President Donald Trump has defended Vladimir Putin when questioned over allegations of murders carried out by the Russian state. In an interview with Fox News, he said: "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?""
Interesting interview in the Guardian with Ken Clarke. I picked up a couple of points: That Brexit will make us collectively poorer isn't acknowledged often enough. Something to bear in mind when people go on pompously about nationhood. That Theresa May, God help us, is the best hope we have for an orderly future, so we need to support her.
Absolute rubbish of course. All my clients are investing in UK as ever. They've often closed fatoreis in UK over the last 30 years for different reasons. Brexit not causing bigger issues. GDP still growing.
Interesting interview in the Guardian with Ken Clarke. I picked up a couple of points: That Brexit will make us collectively poorer isn't acknowledged often enough. Something to bear in mind when people go on pompously about nationhood. That Theresa May, God help us, is the best hope we have for an orderly future, so we need to support her.
In the hypothetical case that the British economy tanks and Brexit is visibly reponsible and within a year of triggering article 50 it becomes obvious that this is happening.....
I would say the chances are very strong that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision.
The PM, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and other prominent Tory Remainers spent six years helping to create the environment in which Leave lies about hordes of Turks coming over to live here seemed credible. If you hear your country's leaders continually talk about immigration as a problem, the EU as the enemy and so on, you can't be blamed for believing them. Most voters listen only sporadically to political debate. David Cameron and George Osborne suddenly becoming champions of an institution they had previously derided must have seemed extraordinary and very dishonest to many, many people. The leaders of the Leave campaign knew they were lying (just as the leaders of Remain did, too), but you can't blame voters for believing them.
Of course in your strange world the mere voter is no where near bright enough to actually make up their own minds about such issues and can only possibly have reached their decisions because they were lied to by their betters.
It is no wonder you and your kind lost. The scorn and distaste you display every day for the average member of the public is quite nauseating.
No, Richard - I have scorn for people who lie to the electorate knowing most people's lives do not revolve around politics. I do not consider people who lie to be better than anyone. Presumably, you must think most people believe man made global warming is real and is a significant danger because they have looked at all the evidence and believe that to be the case. If not, if you believe they have been duped, you are a hypocrite.
Seeking to paint me as part of a kind, an other, an enemy, merely because I do not hold the views you do is quite nauseating. And rather hysterical. Go and have a lie down.
If you think of the degree of burdensome European legislation/directives/regulations that has been gold plated in Westminster without even a whisper of 'Brussels', you must surely see that the opposite situation is true. Uk politicians could have whipped the public up against the EU a million times. They chose not to.
Wait.
If the UK politicians are responsible for gold plating, why on earth would they blame the EU? That makes no logical sense.
The SNP figures show great strength and are entirely in line with the Yougov recent sub samples. However the Tory figures are more vulnerable to the end of the May honeymoon.. Recent local by election figures in England tell you that the Tory vote is fraying at the edges. Only Labour weakness gives the impression of strength.
She won Central due to the incumbent stepping down and the Greens putting up vanity candidate.
There is no Central constituency equivalent for Westminster - the Leith part of North and Leith would swamp her out if she stood there, as would Edinburgh East.
That's a mighty sense of entitlement for the SNP to claim other parties standing against the SNP are "vanity candidates" and their only role is to ensure the SNP candidate wins. Did Ruth Davidson complain about Labour and Lib Dem "vanity candidates"?
If the greens had stood nation wide in constituency seats there would have been no complaints. But they didn't, they put up a scant handful of constituency candidates here and there with no logic to where they were competing.
Alison Johnstone had no hope of gaining the seat and was going to get in on the list vote anyways.
It was a vanity candidacy.
I assume you write from the view of an SNP supporter. Why should the Greens, who are not the SNP, decide stand or not stand just to help the SNP, any more than Labour or the Lib Dems decided not to help the Tories out for their part? If I were a Green supporter, that arrogant and entitled attitude from the SNP would definitely make me more determined to vote for my own party.
My position on this is as a Indy supporter looking at cold hard electoral math and political narratives. I'm not adverse to the Scottish Greens as they do not seem to have the history of anti-science bollocks that permeates other Green parties in Britain. However, Ruth getting in as a constituency MP has a powerful story to present about the resurgence of Unionism and gives her far more authority than if she had crept in on the list. It was a bad decision by the Greens to stand against her.
Similar to Mundell hanging on in 2015 by a few hundred votes, a Scoand with 0 tory MPs, a secretarty of state from outside of Scotland, is a very different story to present going forward.
Comments
Great cover to Der Spiegel though.
https://twitter.com/Brinkbaeumer/status/827561437987954688?s=09
Afghanistan was invaded by both though
NEW THREAD
I would say the chances are very strong that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision.
A very likely scenario in my opinion
Similar to Mundell hanging on in 2015 by a few hundred votes, a Scoand with 0 tory MPs, a secretarty of state from outside of Scotland, is a very different story to present going forward.