Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
I think that you are being a little unfair. I am no fan of either party, but they are distinct. There is certainly some overlap in terms of suport (UKIP polls well in areas where the BNP used to poll well), but UKIP also was more popular with middle class and rural people, often wealthier and more educated, who often took a more anti European than Anti immigration theme. Richard Tyndall here, or Douglas Carswell for example.
Arron Banks saying, I paraphrase, that there is still a role for UKIP because when the government misses its target on immigration, people will turn to UKIP.
Why I was having a discussion on here only the other day about UKIP and how it was simply an anti-immigration party whereas the person I was discussing with maintained that it was not.
Nasty, nasty fuckers.
TBF Arron Banks is a nasty fucker.
But he's only part of UKIP (albeit an important strain)
Off topic re Copeland. I initially missed the exchange between View_from_Cumbria, Dixie and notme at about 8am yesterday morning, but as the former was exceptionally kind and the last much less so it was inevitably drawn to my attention.
As so often in life the truth lies somewhere in between. If the local Conservative association in Copeland had been quite as useless as notme appears to think we would never have managed to significantly cut the Labour majority two years ago despite no longer getting any campaign support and instead providing it with frequent trips to the assigned target seats.
Far from having virtually no activity Copeland Conservatives had selected candidates for the 2017 county council elections for all the divisions in the constituency by Christmas, most of them well before that, and had identified target divisions and begun survey canvassing for the County elections before Jamie Reed announced his resignation. The initial wave of "County News" literature which was put out in the "phoney war" stage of the by-election campaign before Reed actually resigned had originally been ordered and written for the local association to put out in advance of the County elections, hence the name. And there were one or two members of the Copeland constituency who worked extremely hard and had a pivotal role in the campaign.
Having said that, the constituency party would never have been able to resource the sort of campaign which was actually run, nor even properly manage the vast amount of help which flowed in from willing volunteers from the rest of the country in general, the rest of Northern England more particularly, and the rest of Cumbria especially, without the invaluable work of those who notme calls "the big boys." (though about half of them were female.)
In the changing social environment it is harder and harder for many small constituency parties, and I suspect this is true for most other parties and not just the Conservative party, and indeed many other voluntary organisations, to find enough people and resources to do things in the old fashioned way. Success may go to the parties which are better at judging which of the old activities it is critical to keep - if they are wise those Labour party members who were arguing here and elsewhere that telling is a waste of time may be having a rethink about that - and which new ways of doing things may be better.
The dramatic successes which have been achieved in Cumbria when Conservatives throughout the county work together - in 2015, in PCC elections, and now in Copeland - make me very hopeful that the "Cumbria-Wide Conservative Association" (MCA) which was voted through in a membership ballot shortly before the by-election may be one of those new ways both here and elsewhere.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Attitudes towards hardworking Polish plumbers vary according to whether someone is hiring a plumber or they are themselves a British plumber with a large mortgage.
Yes, our Polish friends do seem to have conquered the plumbing business, and indeed building trade in general. My local car wash friends are from, Syria I think, they have replaced automation with manual labour, so much for improving productivity. The car wash business is awful, cold, wet, harsh chemicals etc, all for £4/car round here, yet they are very polite and willing, but I do feel guilty sat inside my warm car listening to the radio whilst they work away.
She could, but it would be a bad time to pick a fight with the Lords, frankly. With everything else going off at once the last thing she needs is to have to think about the role of the second chamber.
Unless she did something really daring and threatened to abolish it completely, but I don't credit her with that much imagination or nerve.
I don't think she would want to go down the abolish route, or sudden reform route, but the headbangers certainly are chomping at the bit to do so - see comments of 'abolish the lot' whenever the prospect of the Lords causing difficulty is brought up - and frankly I don't think she or the Lords want to deal with extreme opinions on either reforming it or pushing their luck by persisting in frustrating Brexit. Such reform needs to be taken with care.
But in terms of pushing it, its in the Lords corner first by seeing how far they take Brexit opposition - if they escalate, she may have to respond in kind. I would hope neither want that.
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.
This is the infamous CNN footage? Why couldn't you do it with a green screen just behind the reporter, and then superimpose him on the footage obtained from a camera on the boat?
Theoretically you could but for what purpose? You're saying the whole scene is real but they shoot it without presenter who they put in afterwards. So the pans zooms etc are all real. Seems pointless
I was just disagreeing with your assertion you'd need a green screen the size of a boat.
We've heard many theories about how this could have been faked. What interests me is: - How much would these possibilities cost? and, - How long would it take to get the facilities set up? and, - How long in advance would they need to know the event was going to happen?
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
What about Santa Monica property?
Bleurgh. Crowded and busy. Who wants to live by the side of a dual carriageway anyway?
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Macron is actually an economic liberal who wants to reduce economic regulation and end the 35 hour week, economically he is not only right of Hamon and Melenchon but right of Le Pen too and Le Pen may well try and exploit hard left resentment of that if she faces him in the runoff (and I still think Fillon could get through, despite his bad week and Macron's good week last week the election is still almost 2 months away). As for 'thrashing' Le Pen, Le Pen is still in front in the first round even on this poll and is now frequently polling over 40% against Macron in the runoff, which when you consider Trump got 45% last November already means she is by no means out of it if she plays the nationalist, anti immigration, protectionist, pro French social model card even if Macron will be clear favourite
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
I appreciate that you enjoy trolling Isam and other posters. But, your argument is as weak as saying the Conservatives and BNP are the same, because they both support Brexit and want big reductions in immigration.
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.
This is the infamous CNN footage? Why couldn't you do it with a green screen just behind the reporter, and then superimpose him on the footage obtained from a camera on the boat?
Theoretically you could but for what purpose? You're saying the whole scene is real but they shoot it without presenter who they put in afterwards. So the pans zooms etc are all real. Seems pointless
I was just disagreeing with your assertion you'd need a green screen the size of a boat.
We've heard many theories about how this could have been faked. What interests me is: - How much would these possibilities cost? and, - How long would it take to get the facilities set up? and, - How long in advance would they need to know the event was going to happen?
The idea there is no distinction between the BNP and UKIP is the sort of thing UKIP likes, because it is simply not true for the cast majority of people, and so actively undermines people seeking to undermine UKIP by making them the victims.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Big new signing for Corbyn's comms team. Am told @FromSteveHowell is joining from Freshwater. He's changed his Twitter profile & everything!
The phrase can't polish a turd comes to mind....
There was a debate about this the other day. Apparently you can...
I appreciate that you enjoy trolling Isam and other posters. But, your argument is as weak as saying the Conservatives and BNP are the same, because they both support Brexit and want big reductions in immigration.
Don't Labour also now support Brexit, officially, and had mugs which stated they wanted to control immigration? I guess everybody is BNP now, it's an epidemic!
And no, I've never voted UKIP, BNP, Conservative (well, second preference for a PCC, once) or Labour,
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
What about Santa Monica property?
Bleurgh. Crowded and busy. Who wants to live by the side of a dual carriageway anyway?
Apparently it's not obligatory to actually live on Ocean Drive.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle di by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
I appreciate that you enjoy trolling Isam and other posters. But, your argument is as weak as saying the Conservatives and BNP are the same, because they both support Brexit and want big reductions in immigration.
Trolling? Moi?
Did you hear Banks on AQ? When asked if there was still a role for UKIP he responded by saying that yes of course there was because when immigration didn't fall, people would turn to UKIP.
Nothing about any other policy, not even the EU. Just immigration. The role for UKIP.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinctie hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the world economy - or the EU - looks like in five years. Could there be a cyclical upturn in France? (Heck, the PMIs suggest that the Eurozone economy, after a decade of decay, is finally getting its mojo back. And with savings rates elevated everywhere you could easily see a four or five year run of above trend growth.)
On the other hand, it could all go tits up. And there might not even be a Eurozone / EU in five years time.
Nevertheless, if the French vote overwhelmingly for Macron over Le Pen, they are explicitly choosing more-EU over less-EU.
(I feel sorry for the French: their only credible anti-EU party has a long history of rampant anti-semitism, and believes that Frances problems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
What about Santa Monica property?
Bleurgh. Crowded and busy. Who wants to live by the side of a dual carriageway anyway?
Apparently it's not obligatory to actually live on Ocean Drive.
You might as well given how long you'll sit on traffic jams there...
(Where will your office be located? Will ask for some suggestions)
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinctie hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party.
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
What about Santa Monica property?
Bleurgh. Crowded and busy. Who wants to live by the side of a dual carriageway anyway?
Apparently it's not obligatory to actually live on Ocean Drive.
You might as well given how long you'll sit on traffic jams there...
(Where will your office be located? Will ask for some suggestions)
The office is on Ocean Drive , about four minutes from Ivy on the Beach and six or seven from the pier.
I met your colleague when he was over in London. He was very impressive.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinctie hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reaso bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating the
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
There is nothing in the footage that gives me any reason to suspect it’s fake. What we know for certain is that it’s shot on a single camera and there are two tracks one sound one vision. We also know he was on a real boat and we have a good idea of the size of that boat. So the claim must be that the background scene has been put in afterwards.
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.
What's more if they had done it this way it would have been done more professionally. At least two cameras and with proper cut-aways . So the first reason you know it's real is because faking it would have been impossibly expensive and would have had a different look and mor filmic look.
I imagine the reason people might think it’s fake is because of the awkwardness of the shot but that’s another reason why you know it’s authentic. It’s clearly shot with one camera on legs.
Near the beginning the presenter-in shot- tells the cameraman to pan to the boat on camera right. He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
Nonetheless at this point the cameraman needs to pan back to the presenter. A difficult shot to do accurately so what they needed was a cut-away which they can use to run over the dialogue and then re frame on something close to their original shot. The cameraman will then swing the camera back and reframe.
While this slightly clumsy exercise is happening the editor will use a cut-away (which in this instance was a zoomed in shot of the battleship though anything at a different size to the main shot would have done). And the viewer will see the presenter as in the original shot
So in conclusion the reason you know it's for real is because if it wasn't it wouldn't have been shot like this. Everything about it is authentic. Even if they did have the budget for a green/blue screen someone would still have had to shoot the background plate and marrying a foreground zoom to a background zoom is just way too complicated and expensive for news footage.
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the world economy - or the EU - looks like in five years. Could there be a cyclical upturn in France? (Heck, the PMIs suggest that the Eurozone economy, after a decade of decay, is finally getting its mojo back. And with savings rates elevated everywhere you could easily see a four or five year run of above trend growth.)
On the other hand, it could all go tits up. And there might not even be a Eurozone / EU in five years time.
Nevertheless, if the French vote overwhelmingly for Macron over Le Pen, they are explicitly choosing more-EU over less-EU.
(I feel sorry for the French: their only credible anti-EU party has a long history of rampant anti-semitism, and believes that Frances problems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Chirac even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the world economy - or the EU - looks like in five years. Could there be a cyclical upturn in France? (Heck, the PMIs suggest that the Eurozone economy, after a decade of decay, is finally getting its mojo back. And with savings rates elevated everywhere you could easily see a four or five year run of above trend growth.)
On the other hand, it could all go tits up. And there might not even be a Eurozone / EU in five years time.
Nevertheless, if the French vote overwhelmingly for Macron over Le Pen, they are explicitly choosing more-EU over less-EU.
(I feel sorry for the French: their only credible anti-EU party has a long history of rampant anti-semitism, and believes that Frances problems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Le Pen even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
I certainly do not write Le Pen off in a run off. I do think Fillon is French toast though. He has done well to hang on to a core of around 20% of support following the scandal, but I think it will be hard for him to get back the 5 or 6% he lost over it.
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinctie hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
UKIP want controls on EU immigration
They're not the same thing, you just like to conflate the two so you feel good about yourself. Virtue signalling I think they call it.
Nah. I'm conflating them because they are the same.
UKIP, for whatever the fuck reason, is an anti-immigration party. The BNP, for whatever the fuck reaso bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating the
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
Maybe
"But that's between you and your therapist"
Nasty fuckers in every party I reckon
"full blown mental"...etc
I always retaliate to abuse
Fair enough no moral high ground for you.
Definitely not! Some people need telling
Too many people here pretend to have the moral high ground despite being highly fallible. But don't mention it, or else
I don't think the Tories will get anywhere near migration in the tens of thousands. Not even sure they want to. They just want to have the ultimate control over numbers. And to stop migrants claiming benefits - or sleeping rough etc. And this is what angers voters, it's not hard working polish plumbers, it's Roma sleeping in subways and Bulgarians sending child benefit home.
Sensible politics. It's gonna be soft Brexit with a hard appearance. Venus in leather.
What about Santa Monica property?
Bleurgh. Crowded and busy. Who wants to live by the side of a dual carriageway anyway?
Apparently it's not obligatory to actually live on Ocean Drive.
You might as well given how long you'll sit on traffic jams there...
(Where will your office be located? Will ask for some suggestions)
The office is on Ocean Drive , about four minutes from Ivy on the Beach and six or seven from the pier.
I met your colleague when he was over in London. He was very impressive.
Glad you liked him. We're protective about the platform
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the beproblems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Le Pen even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
I certainly do not write Le Pen off in a run off. I do think Fillon is French toast though. He has done well to hang on to a core of around 20% of support following the scandal, but I think it will be hard for him to get back the 5 or 6% he lost over it.
Macron has had a minor bounce after Bayrou's endorsement last week and the announcement of a formal investigation into Fillon's finances. However the first round is not next week but April and plenty can happen until then, as long as Fillon holds that 20% or so he still has a chance of making the runoff against Le Pen even if Macron is now more likely to do so
RCS1000--Never said or suggested that you ignorant prat.
I am sure rcs1000 would never stoop to saying "Do you know who I am", but do you know who he is?
"Do you know who I am? I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."
This isn't a game of "Who the fuck am I"......
Although it did produce a great Ron Burgundy quote from Sunil so it's actually worked out pretty well.
I've never really followed a French election, but surely the system encourages this sort of thing in the polls. If I was a Fillon supporter I'd definitely say Le Pen in the choice between Macron and Le Pen. The last thing I'd want is for Macron to claim that only he can be sure of beating Le Pen.
Given yet another Jezza mini-meltdown today, if he does make it through to 2020, the man is going to go off the deep end under the pressure of a month's worth of 24/7 coverage.
I've never really followed a French election, but surely the system encourages this sort of thing in the polls. If I was a Fillon supporter I'd definitely say Le Pen in the choice between Macron and Le Pen. The last thing I'd want is for Macron to claim that only he can be sure of beating Le Pen.
If you were to find a path for a Le Pen victory over Macron in the runoff it would require her to win a majority of Fillon voters and get a sizeable number of Melenchon voters and a few Hamon voters too to back her in round 2 ie a conservative nationalist and hard left coalition against the liberal Macron
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the beproblems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Le Pen even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
I certainly do not write Le Pen off in a run off. I do think Fillon is French toast though. He has done well to hang on to a core of around 20% of support following the scandal, but I think it will be hard for him to get back the 5 or 6% he lost over it.
Macron has had a minor bounce after Bayrou's endorsement last week and the announcement of a formal investigation into Fillon's finances. However the first round is not next week but April and plenty can happen until then, as long as Fillon holds that 20% or so he still has a chance of making the runoff against Le Pen even if Macron is now more likely to do so
8 weeks today they go to the polls and, as you say, anything can happen in that time. However, If Fillon holds at 20 and Macron loses 5 or 6, then where is that 5 or 6% gonna go? Unlikely to go to Le Pen, but if it does it pushes her above 30. More likely to go to Hamon, who then becomes a threat to ovetaking Fillon.
They will. It is not so much the nationalism and xenophobia of LePen that would put them off, so much as the economic policy.
At least 45% of Fillon voters will back Macron, ie the upper middle class wealthy fiscally conservative ones who are not too dissimilar to the wealthy urban liberals and young centrist graduates who are already backing Macron, however it is not impossible Le Pen gets a majority of the lower middle class and working class Fillon voters ie the nationalist, anti immigration and tough on crime ones who live in provincial and rural France. In terms of demographics in the runoff Le Pen is Leave and to a lesser extent Trump and Macron is Remain/Hillary
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the beproblems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Le Pen even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
I certainly do not write Le Pen off in a run off. I do think Fillon is French toast though. He has done well to hang on to a core of around 20% of support following the scandal, but I think it will be hard for him to get back the 5 or 6% he lost over it.
Macron has had a minor bounce after Bayrou's endorsement last week and the announcement of a formal investigation into Fillon's finances. However the first round is not next week but April and plenty can happen until then, as long as Fillon holds that 20% or so he still has a chance of making the runoff against Le Pen even if Macron is now more likely to do so
8 weeks today they go to the polls and, as you say, anything can happen in that time. However, If Fillon holds at 20 and Macron loses 5 or 6, then where is that 5 or 6% gonna go? Unlikely to go to Le Pen, but if it does it pushes her above 30. More likely to go to Hamon, who then becomes a threat to ovetaking Fillon.
And what if Melenchon withdraws? A Le Pen vs Hamon shoot out in Round II?
Given yet another Jezza mini-meltdown today, if he does make it through to 2020, the man is going to go off the deep end under the pressure of a month's worth of 24/7 coverage.
I saw a clip today where he was practically snarling at the interviewer.
Then you can see he thinks "not a good look" and pastes a smile on his face.
There is already overwhelming evidence, in regional elections - including two contested by Le Pen jr and Le Pen III - that Les Republicains back anyone else.
There is nothing in the footage that gives me any reason to suspect it’s fake. What we know for certain is that it’s shot on a single camera and there are two tracks one sound one vision. We also know he was on a real boat and we have a good idea of the size of that boat. So the claim must be that the background scene has been put in afterwards.
The only way it could practically have been superimposed is by using a blue/green screen which because he’s full length would have meant that the screen was behind the boat. In other words it would have to be huge. A massive building job with a foreground boat in an exterior studio. The alternative would be building the skeleton of the boat around the person and shooting it in a green/blue screen studio which would be just as expensive and completely prohibitive for news footage.
What's more if they had done it this way it would have been done more professionally. At least two cameras and with proper cut-aways . So the first reason you know it's real is because faking it would have been impossibly expensive and would have had a different look and mor filmic look.
I imagine the reason people might think it’s fake is because of the awkwardness of the shot but that’s another reason why you know it’s authentic. It’s clearly shot with one camera on legs.
Near the beginning the presenter-in shot- tells the cameraman to pan to the boat on camera right. He zooms and pans right and shows the warship. If they had used green/blue screen the background zoom would not have matched the foreground zoom. Almost impossible.
Nonetheless at this point the cameraman needs to pan back to the presenter. A difficult shot to do accurately so what they needed was a cut-away which they can use to run over the dialogue and then re frame on something close to their original shot. The cameraman will then swing the camera back and reframe.
While this slightly clumsy exercise is happening the editor will use a cut-away (which in this instance was a zoomed in shot of the battleship though anything at a different size to the main shot would have done). And the viewer will see the presenter as in the original shot
So in conclusion the reason you know it's for real is because if it wasn't it wouldn't have been shot like this. Everything about it is authentic. Even if they did have the budget for a green/blue screen someone would still have had to shoot the background plate and marrying a foreground zoom to a background zoom is just way too complicated and expensive for news footage.
There is already overwhelming evidence, in regional elections - including two contested by Le Pen jr and Le Pen III - that Les Republicains back anyone else.
A bit of the LR support in the previous regional polls (which the LR won clearly) is already backing Macron and FN have never previously hit the 40%+ nationally they are already polling in the runoff for this year's presidential election
Macron is surging. He must now be strong favorite to be president. He'll thrash Le Pen.
This is good in terms of keeping out the FN, but fairly disastrous for France, I think. He's an effete version of Blair, without a reformed Thatcherite economy to fund his plans. He will continue relative French decline, and exacerbate right wing anxieties about culture and identity.
Which means that the FN, or someone like them, really COULD win next time around.
Although who knows what the beproblems are due to insufficient trade barriers, big business, and people retiring too late and on too small state pensions.)
This is not the only poll out in the past day or so that shows Macron surging forward on 25%. The one for Le Figaro quoted above shows it Macron 25, Fillon 20. The one by Odoxa has Macron's lead over Fillon as 25-19.
Le Pen is on 39% in the runoff against Macron on that poll, 42% with Le Figaro which would be more than double the 18% her father got in the runoff against Le Pen even at this stage. If she runs an effective campaign portraying Macron as the tool of liberal capitalism and globalisation and a supporter of uncontrolled borders it could be a close contest. Of course with 2 months to go until the election Fillon also has a chance to push himself back into the runoff to face Le Pen
I certainly do not write Le Pen off in a run off. I do think Fillon is French toast though. He has done well to hang on to a core of around 20% of support following the scandal, but I think it will be hard for him to get back the 5 or 6% he lost over it.
Macron has had a minor bounce after Bayrou's endorsement last week and the announcement of a formal investigation into Fillon's finances. However the first round is not next week but April and plenty can happen until then, as long as Fillon holds that 20% or so he still has a chance of making the runoff against Le Pen even if Macron is now more likely to do so
8 weeks today they go to the polls and, as you say, anything can happen in that time. However, If Fillon holds at 20 and Macron loses 5 or 6, then where is that 5 or 6% gonna go? Unlikely to go to Le Pen, but if it does it pushes her above 30. More likely to go to Hamon, who then becomes a threat to ovetaking Fillon.
That is Hamon's best bet yes but I don't see much of Macron's first round support moving to him now
If you are referring to the conversation you had with me, I believe you said "anti immigrant" party that was no different to the BNP. I certainly maintain that it isn't that, and that's what you said, not "anti immigration"
If you are referring to a different discussion, my apologies
It's a subtle distinction, Sam. Difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. I won't presume what that difference is but let's suppose that it could mean on the one hand welcoming all those already here but not wanting more vs not liking any, past or future.
Now, there may be one or two Kippers who genuinely believe the former interpretation. But many, many more belong in the second camp and in any case the line between the two is blurred. UKIP is an anti-immigration/anti-immigrant party, as articulated by Arron Banks, and disgusting for that reason.
Just because two phrases look and sound similar, doesn't mean they aren't completely different in meaning.
The BNP discriminate against all, inc British, people that aren't white
You might prefer to think UKIP is different from the BNP because it makes you feel less bad. But that's between you and your therapist.
Haha no you are conflating them either because you are stupid, and wrong, or trying to make yourself fell good!
You said they were both "anti immigrant", which isn't true. I am just correcting you, no need to go full blown mental about it
They both are anti-immigrant. Only in your head is there a distinction.
Haha you are full blown mental!!
I have outlined the distinction several times. You need a bogey man to make yourself feel good so don't accept it. Fair do's, we all have our little ways
OK. The BNP is completely different from UKIP. 100% different not at all similar.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
You ok hun?
You should step away from the keyboard for a while.
Nah. I genuinely don't think there is a cat in hells chance of Le Pen winning. In any run off the anti Le Pen will rally around whoever is facing her unless they have the appeal of Corbyn.
Nah. I genuinely don't think there is a cat in hells chance of Le Pen winning. In any run off the anti Le Pen will rally around whoever is facing her unless they have the appeal of Corbyn.
Perhaps but this runoff will certainly be far closer than the 2002 runoff involving her father
Comments
But he's only part of UKIP (albeit an important strain)
As so often in life the truth lies somewhere in between. If the local Conservative association in Copeland had been quite as useless as notme appears to think we would never have managed to significantly cut the Labour majority two years ago despite no longer getting any campaign support and instead providing it with frequent trips to the assigned target seats.
Far from having virtually no activity Copeland Conservatives had selected candidates for the 2017 county council elections for all the divisions in the constituency by Christmas, most of them well before that, and had identified target divisions and begun survey canvassing for the County elections before Jamie Reed announced his resignation. The initial wave of "County News" literature which was put out in the "phoney war" stage of the by-election campaign before Reed actually resigned had originally been ordered and written for the local association to put out in advance of the County elections, hence the name. And there were one or two members of the Copeland constituency who worked extremely hard and had a pivotal role in the campaign.
Having said that, the constituency party would never have been able to resource the sort of campaign which was actually run, nor even properly manage the vast amount of help which flowed in from willing volunteers from the rest of the country in general, the rest of Northern England more particularly, and the rest of Cumbria especially, without the invaluable work of those who notme calls "the big boys." (though about half of them were female.)
In the changing social environment it is harder and harder for many small constituency parties, and I suspect this is true for most other parties and not just the Conservative party, and indeed many other voluntary organisations, to find enough people and resources to do things in the old fashioned way. Success may go to the parties which are better at judging which of the old activities it is critical to keep - if they are wise those Labour party members who were arguing here and elsewhere that telling is a waste of time may be having a rethink about that - and which new ways of doing things may be better.
The dramatic successes which have been achieved in Cumbria when Conservatives throughout the county work together - in 2015, in PCC elections, and now in Copeland - make me very hopeful that the "Cumbria-Wide Conservative Association" (MCA) which was voted through in a membership ballot shortly before the by-election may be one of those new ways both here and elsewhere.
So let me clear things up for you and my argument. UKIP is an anti-immigration party as articulated by Arron Banks and as such are full of nasty fuckers. Perhaps that includes you, who knows.
The car wash business is awful, cold, wet, harsh chemicals etc, all for £4/car round here, yet they are very polite and willing, but I do feel guilty sat inside my warm car listening to the radio whilst they work away.
But in terms of pushing it, its in the Lords corner first by seeing how far they take Brexit opposition - if they escalate, she may have to respond in kind. I would hope neither want that.
- How much would these possibilities cost? and,
- How long would it take to get the facilities set up? and,
- How long in advance would they need to know the event was going to happen?
"But that's between you and your therapist"
Nasty fuckers in every party I reckon
And no, I've never voted UKIP, BNP, Conservative (well, second preference for a PCC, once) or Labour,
Did you hear Banks on AQ? When asked if there was still a role for UKIP he responded by saying that yes of course there was because when immigration didn't fall, people would turn to UKIP.
Nothing about any other policy, not even the EU. Just immigration. The role for UKIP.
http://www.odoxa.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Intention-de-vote-Odoxa-Dentsu-Consulting-du-26022017.pdf
(Where will your office be located? Will ask for some suggestions)
I met your colleague when he was over in London. He was very impressive.
https://twitter.com/JolyonGreen/status/835930806321364995
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-could-deported-before-gets-12656430
Too many people here pretend to have the moral high ground despite being highly fallible. But don't mention it, or else
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/835935918775218177
Then you can see he thinks "not a good look" and pastes a smile on his face.
NEW THREAD
The party that decided to make the white man angry
That came up with Gulags for slags and British jobs for British workers.
The party that effectively ignores anti semitism and quietly lets offenders back when the media no longer looking
Are Labour nasty murali?