Yeap, he clearly wouldn't take a pay cut like Eddie Mair and Virgin are willing to pay him the big bucks.
Chris Evans, the broadcaster, is returning to Virgin Radio after announcing live on his Radio 2 Breakfast show that he is quitting the station.
The 52-year-old will host the Virgin Breakfast Show almost 20 years after he left the station. He previously hosted the breakfast show at the station from 1997 to 2001.
Virgin's one of those stations noone can (In their car) or will (Because there are more entertaining things to do when you're not driving) listen to isn't it ?
Yeap, he clearly wouldn't take a pay cut like Eddie Mair and Virgin are willing to pay him the big bucks.
Chris Evans, the broadcaster, is returning to Virgin Radio after announcing live on his Radio 2 Breakfast show that he is quitting the station.
The 52-year-old will host the Virgin Breakfast Show almost 20 years after he left the station. He previously hosted the breakfast show at the station from 1997 to 2001.
Virgin's one of those stations noone can (In their car) or will (Because there are more entertaining things to do when you're not driving) listen to isn't it ?
I wouldn't know....In the same way I hardly ever watch live tv these days (other than sport), I listen to podcasts / spotify in the car. Given modern technology why would you want somebody to pick your music choices for you or be forced to listen to them drivel on.
Parties stand on manifestos, General Elections are held (in the last one over 80% of the votes went to parties supporting Brexit) and a government formed.
May stood on a Brexit manifesto and lost her majority
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
True, or more likely somewhere in between.
Of course one way around that is to brand one's nationalism as patriotism.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Poor management of the campaign, a leader who many distrusted, a failure to recognise what was actually being done by the other side, a failure, because they didn’t believe they could lose, to put over the true problems which would result from Leaving and therefore forecast some unlikely cataclysm. And on a lower level, apparently forgetting that postal votes,m of which there are a great many, are cast a long while before the election day itself.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
A good example, though it may be more subtle than that, and be related to politics and the oppression of a foreign power. Then comes the subtle difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't think the Eastern European countries deemed themselves to be "superior" to others, which is a generally accepted requirement for nationalism.
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
@Cyclefree . Good article: thank you. Since the 2016 Presidential election the quality of articles on PB are getting better, and we've had some good ones from yourself, @Topping, @AlastairMeeks, @david_herdson (and no doubt others I have forgotten)
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Poor management of the campaign, a leader who many distrusted, a failure to recognise what was actually being done by the other side, a failure, because they didn’t believe they could lose, to put over the true problems which would result from Leaving and therefore forecast some unlikely cataclysm. And on a lower level, apparently forgetting that postal votes,m of which there are a great many, are cast a long while before the election day itself.
Agree with much of that (though LEAVE were hardly better organised) - but it was epitomised by Lord Rose's (misquoted) 'wages will go up' - not everyone thinks thats a bad thing....
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Talking of 'benefits' the UK's non-contributary benefits system was another 'problem' (entirely within our control) that successive governments have ducked tackling - which added to the perception of 'unfairness' (although most EU workers put in more than they take out).
The Brexit vote was a long time in the making - it didn't just happen on Cameron's watch - he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Poor management of the campaign, a leader who many distrusted, a failure to recognise what was actually being done by the other side, a failure, because they didn’t believe they could lose, to put over the true problems which would result from Leaving and therefore forecast some unlikely cataclysm. And on a lower level, apparently forgetting that postal votes,m of which there are a great many, are cast a long while before the election day itself.
Agree with much of that (though LEAVE were hardly better organised) - but it was epitomised by Lord Rose's (misquoted) 'wages will go up' - not everyone thinks thats a bad thing....
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Talking of 'benefits' the UK's non-contributary benefits system was another 'problem' (entirely within our control) that successive governments have ducked tackling - which added to the perception of 'unfairness' (although most EU workers put in more than they take out).
The Brexit vote was a long time in the making - it didn't just happen on Cameron's watch - he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.
Why didn't you advance this analysis at the time? It comes across as disingenuous.
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
P
Agree with much of that (though LEAVE were hardly better organised) - but it was epitomised by Lord Rose's (misquoted) 'wages will go up' - not everyone thinks thats a bad thing....
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Talking of 'benefits' the UK's non-contributary benefits system was another 'problem' (entirely within our control) that successive governments have ducked tackling - which added to the perception of 'unfairness' (although most EU workers put in more than they take out).
The Brexit vote was a long time in the making - it didn't just happen on Cameron's watch - he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.
Why didn't you advance this analysis at the time? It comes across as disingenuous.
Most analysis is after the fact, isn't it? Or do you analyse events before they happen?
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
P
Agree with much of that (though LEAVE were hardly better organised) - but it was epitomised by Lord Rose's (misquoted) 'wages will go up' - not everyone thinks thats a bad thing....
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Why didn't you advance this analysis at the time? It comes across as disingenuous.
Most analysis is after the fact, isn't it? Or do you analyse events before they happen?
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Are you seriously claiming that it is only possible to analyse the quality of a campaign after the outcome is known? Wow. You were an arch Remainer who was criticising the Leave campaign daily – until they won. You are a like glory hunting football fan who changes allegiance to whoever wins.
If the EU do not want a deal then so be it. It would seem to be in both sides economic interest, but if their blinkered political ideology and punishment mentality prevent them from logically negotiating then that we can’t force them into a sensible deal.
Your use of the words "logically" and "sensible" highlight the problem and it underpins everything, pre- and post-Brexit. Other countries do things for their own reasons, and those reasons may ignore us or be actively against us. If we can't develop the muscles to force a good outcome, then we have a problem.
One of my complaints about Brexit (there are many) is that it confuses "can" with "will" - the assumption that just because we could negotiate better deals then they would inevitably happen. It doesn't work like that.
Afaict that conclusion is not borne out by the research. Signifcant amounts of abuse might be occurring between factions within a party. For instance Soubry might get lots from Conservative leavers, or Woodcock from Corbynites.
The research doesn't look muxh into the political affiliations of the abusers.
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
P
Agree with much of that (though LEAVE were hardly better organised) - but it was epitomised by Lord Rose's (misquoted) 'wages will go up' - not everyone thinks thats a bad thing....
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Why didn't you advance this analysis at the time? It comes across as disingenuous.
Most analysis is after the fact, isn't it? Or do you analyse events before they happen?
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Are you seriously claiming that it is only possible to analyse the quality of a campaign after the outcome is known? Wow.
After a career in advertising I found it much better to go from results rather than suppositions.
You're still very shy in offering any analysis yourself, preferring to criticise other posters - why not write what YOU think?
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
A good example, though it may be more subtle than that, and be related to politics and the oppression of a foreign power. Then comes the subtle difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't think the Eastern European countries deemed themselves to be "superior" to others, which is a generally accepted requirement for nationalism.
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
Are you seriously claiming that it is only possible to analyse the quality of a campaign after the outcome is known? Wow. You were an arch Remainer who was criticising the Leave campaign daily – until they won. You are a like glory hunting football fan who changes allegiance to whoever wins.
Good to know that even after relegation, you're sticking wth the losers!
Excellent article from Ms Cyclefree. She is right about the dangers.
On the questions of Brexit, UK politics, and the difficulties of the two main parties, what can we expect to happen next? A few thoughts:
1. I'm not convinced Chequers is as dead as it looks. We can discount Michel Barnier's remarks to a large degree - he's hardly going to say 'Wow, this is absolutely splendid', is he? And if I were cynical, I might even wonder whether saying how difficult it is for the EU to accept it might be a deliberate ploy to help Theresa May get it through parliament.
On the UK side, it's all very well both sides trashing Chequers, and it's true that few MPs are enamoured of it. However, as Damian Green and others have pointed out, whilst there's no obvious parliamentary majority in favour of it, there's an even bigger majority against either the ERG 'no deal' route or the alternative of abandoning Brexit in name or de facto. So, if the government hangs together and manages to reach some deal with the EU, parliament won't simply be able to say 'Nah, don't like this', they will have to vote either explicitly or implicitly for something else - most likely no deal at all. Are Vince Cable, Chukka Umanna, Keir Starmer, and the SNP going to join JRM and the ERGers in doing that? Strange bedfellows indeed, who could only come together if they all reach massively incompatible conclusions about what would follow from their vote. So, when push comes to shove, I'd expect a series of MPs to stand up to say 'This is not my favoured outcome, but I'm going to vote for it because the alternative is completely unacceptable'.
2. The crucial caveat in the above is 'if the government hangs together'. Clearly Boris and his unlikely supporters amongst the ultras (who clearly haven't remembered his track record of self-contradiction) are going to have a go at toppling Theresa May, but to what end? It won't alter the parlimentary arithmetic. Is a harder Brexit suddenly going to attract support from Labour, the SNP, and Sarah Wollaston just because Boris is at the dispatch box rather than May? Alternatively, things could get so destabilised that there's an early election, very probably reducing the strength of the hard Brexiteers, possibly even to the extent of putting Corbyn into No 10.
On both points 1 and 2, TINA rules.
3. As for Labour, it's too late now for Corbyn to head off the anti-Semitism row. Even if the party belatedly accepts the disputed international definition of anti-Semitism, it's too little, too late, and would simply invite a stream of articles and speeches pointing out that Corbyn's own past words and actions are unambiguously anti-Semitic under the code.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
Nationalism caused the Yugoslav genicides. Oppression and economic chaos caused the break-up of the Soviet bloc.
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
In the world of Scottish manufacturing there are already gains and losses becoming evident from the political impasse. The pound has dropped and skilled wages in the UK are well below the continent. The only trouble is that finding skilled workers is becoming harder. Students are available and lots of good ones desperate to find a job with a future. Retail and coffee shops not seen as the future.
New investment in plant in the UK is virtually non existent while people wait. Our industry is operating at close to 100% capacity and no-one adding new capacity.
Tax authorities very focused on finding money. They phone ahead of time to check we paying our monthly taxes on time.
The NHS is still short of money to pay suppliers and certain hospitals credit scores are junk grade. Many senior staff in 50s clock watching until they can get their pension and move on. Played golf with one on Saturday and the talk was all about pensions the same with my brother the week before who is dean of surgery at major SE England hospital. Morale appears really low.
It is semi ironic that the major thrust of the Scottish Tory campaign last Scottish election was that the SNP were too focused on independence rather than doing what was good for Scotland. This campaign was a big success
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
A good example, though it may be more subtle than that, and be related to politics and the oppression of a foreign power. Then comes the subtle difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't think the Eastern European countries deemed themselves to be "superior" to others, which is a generally accepted requirement for nationalism.
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
Excellent article from Ms Cyclefree. She is right about the dangers.
On the questions of Brexit, UK politics, and the difficulties of the two main parties, what can we expect to happen next? A few thoughts:
1. I'm not convinced Chequers is as dead as it looks. We can discount Michel Barnier's remarks to a large degree - he's hardly going to say 'Wow, this is absolutely splendid', is he? And if I were cynical, I might even wonder whether saying how difficult it is for the EU to accept it might be a deliberate ploy to help Theresa May get it through parliament.
On the UK side, it's all very well both sides trashing Chequers, and it's true that few MPs are enamoured of it. However, as Damian Green and others have pointed out, whilst there's no obvious parliamentary majority in favour of it, there's an even bigger majority against either the ERG 'no deal' route or the alternative of abandoning Brexit in name or de facto. So, if the government hangs together and manages to reach some deal with the EU, parliament won't simply be able to say 'Nah, don't like this', they will have to vote either explicitly or implicitly for something else - most likely no deal at all. Are Vince Cable, Chukka Umanna, Keir Starmer, and the SNP going to join JRM and the ERGers in doing that? Strange bedfellows indeed, who could only come together if they all reach massively incompatible conclusions about what would follow from their vote. So, when push comes to shove, I'd expect a series of MPs to stand up to say 'This is not my favoured outcome, but I'm going to vote for it because the alternative is completely unacceptable'.
2. The crucial caveat in the above is 'if the government hangs together'. Clearly Boris and his unlikely supporters amongst the ultras (who clearly haven't remembered his track record of self-contradiction) are going to have a go at toppling Theresa May, but to what end? It won't alter the parlimentary arithmetic. Is a harder Brexit suddenly going to attract support from Labour, the SNP, and Sarah Wollaston just because Boris is at the dispatch box rather than May? Alternatively, things could get so destabilised that there's an early election, very probably reducing the strength of the hard Brexiteers, possibly even to the extent of putting Corbyn into No 10.
On both points 1 and 2, TINA rules.
+1
Also the wings beckon for Barnier, he's hoping to get a deal that's ready for the heads of government but the importance of the 'technical' to the 'political' is shifting in favour of the latter. Of course it could all still go horribly wrong - and I'd reckon the chances of it going wrong on our end are higher than the EU's - but Boris is all piss & wind (mainly wind).
Of the prominent Tory Leavers, Boris, Davis and Patel are out of government. Gove remains.
Two quit and the third fired for incompetence.
These are the giant brains you think would deliver Utopia?
No.
But they beat Remain.
Oh, and a bus. Mustn't forget the bus.
And the poster. Let's not forget the poster.
Yep, that too.
So, 'giant brains' (sic) a bus and a dishonest poster beat Remain.
And they still don't know why.....
Probably easier just blaming the voters.....
If you really believed this, why didn't you advance this analysis of the campaign at the time? Your neobrexiteer hindsight is 20/20.
the general idea of a elections is you dont know the result until the vote is counted.
So the shrewd neo/brexiteer minds on here are only able to analyse the quality of a campaign by the result of the subsequent election? Wow.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
P
snip
Why didn't you advance this analysis at the time? It comes across as disingenuous.
Most analysis is after the fact, isn't it? Or do you analyse events before they happen?
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
Are you seriously claiming that it is only possible to analyse the quality of a campaign after the outcome is known? Wow.
snip
Anyone can call a winner after the race is run. No doubt on 13 April you tipped Tiger Roll to win the national the day before.
I have said several times, by pandering to xenophobia, lying about public spending and whipping up anti-foreigner sentiment Leave managed to secure the narrow majority it needed with the most disgusting campaign in modern British history. It really is that simple.
Are you seriously claiming that it is only possible to analyse the quality of a campaign after the outcome is known? Wow. You were an arch Remainer who was criticising the Leave campaign daily – until they won. You are a like glory hunting football fan who changes allegiance to whoever wins.
Good to know that even after relegation, you're sticking wth the losers!
As my team hasn't been in the top flight for 20 years I am used to it!
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
A good example, though it may be more subtle than that, and be related to politics and the oppression of a foreign power. Then comes the subtle difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't think the Eastern European countries deemed themselves to be "superior" to others, which is a generally accepted requirement for nationalism.
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
And he cancelled the Thames Gateway Bridge in east London back in 2008!
Dr. Prasannan, to be honest I had the battles of Beneventum and Magnesia in mind, rather than the Hydaspes. Porus was a very capable chap, perhaps Alexander's greatest single opponent.
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
Does Corbyn have ideas? Or just a list of things that he has been opposed to for the last 40 odd years? Such ideas as he has espoused, such as the nationalisation of the train companies, seem to me to be ideas that were in vogue 40 years ago and more, tried to exhaustion and found to have failed.
I've never made this argument because I am not entirely sure of it but couldn't the same have been said of Thatcher and her more free market approach in her early days. A very simplified reading might put us in a cycle over many decades with the economic dial sliding from left to right to a more or a less free market approach.
Thatcher didn't take us back perfectly to what was before and neither would Corbyn try or be able to in terms of economic policy take us back to what was before.
But Thatcher didn't fail. She revived the UK economy and, mainly through Lawson, sent a series of "big ideas" out into the world where they were cheerfully adopted and retained to this day. These ideas were privatisation, removing the dead hand of the State from enterprise, the importance of markets being free, even free to make mistakes, the importance of sound money and the benefits of free trade.
That is very much a matter of opinion. Thatcher left a big Balance of Payments deficit in 1990 , inflation at 9.8% was barely changed from the 10.1% inherited from Callaghan in May 1979, and British manufacturing industries had been devastated. This was despite the massive North Seal Oil revenues flowing to the Treasury throughout the 1980s and the proceeds of privatisation. That is before we even begin to count the social cost of her human wickedness.
Excellent article from Ms Cyclefree. She is right about the dangers.
On the questions of Brexit, UK politics, and the difficulties of the two main parties, what can we expect to happen next? A few thoughts:
1. I'm not convinced Chequers is as dead as it looks. We can discount Michel Barnier's remarks to a large degree - he's hardly going to say 'Wow, this is absolutely splendid', is he? And if I were cynical, I might even wonder whether saying how difficult it is for the EU to accept it might be a deliberate ploy to help Theresa May get it through parliament.
On the UK side, it's all very well both sides trashing Chequers, and it's true that few MPs are enamoured of it. However, as Damian Green and others have pointed out, whilst there's no obvious parliamentary majority in favour of it, there's an even bigger majority against either the ERG 'no deal' route or the alternative of abandoning Brexit in name or de facto. So, if the government hangs together and manages to reach some deal with the EU, parliament won't simply be able to say 'Nah, don't like this', they will have to vote either explicitly or implicitly for something else - most likely no deal at all. Are Vince Cable, Chukka Umanna, Keir Starmer, and the SNP going to join JRM and the ERGers in doing that? Strange bedfellows indeed, who could only come together if they all reach massively incompatible conclusions about what would follow from their vote. So, when push comes to shove, I'd expect a series of MPs to stand up to say 'This is not my favoured outcome, but I'm going to vote for it because the alternative is completely unacceptable'.
On both points 1 and 2, TINA rules.
+1
Also the wings beckon for Barnier, he's hoping to get a deal that's ready for the heads of government but the importance of the 'technical' to the 'political' is shifting in favour of the latter. Of course it could all still go horribly wrong - and I'd reckon the chances of it going wrong on our end are higher than the EU's - but Boris is all piss & wind (mainly wind).
I also can't help wondering if there is a lot of political theatre going on. In some ways the interventions from Davis and Boris actually help our negotiating position as it means May can turn around and say she can't make further concessions.
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
Now THAT is good analysis!
You mean 'I agree with it'!
Yes LEAVE's campaign was inglorious - but refusing to face up to the deficiencies of REMAIN's campaign will not help the cause in the future. I find it wiser to learn from my failures, than dismiss them as 'the other side cheated'.
Dr. Prasannan, to be honest I had the battles of Beneventum and Magnesia in mind, rather than the Hydaspes. Porus was a very capable chap, perhaps Alexander's greatest single opponent.
Mr Dancer, my mistake, I was probably too much influenced by the Brad Pitt movie
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
Now THAT is good analysis!
You mean 'I agree with it'!
Yes LEAVE's campaign was inglorious - but refusing to face up to the deficiencies of REMAIN's campaign will not help the cause in the future. I find it wiser to learn from my failures, than dismiss them as 'the other side cheated'.
I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the Remain campaign, at least not all of it. I am just chastising you for after-timing!!
Remember I had my biggest betting pay day ever on Brexit so I had more than a hunch things would go wrong. Sadly pandering to racism and xenophobia works, depressing as that is.
Bloody hell, I thought, where are we playing this morning. I was told at Essex on Saturday that the club was setting money aside to pay him next year, instead of a very expensive overseas player. Seems likely too that money will be saved by Foster retiring.
As far as his leadership ambitions go, Johnson’s maths problem could be fatal. There are enough MPs to dump Chequers, but are there enough to oust May and instal him? With every hurdle he passes, the number he needs to meet gets bigger, and the chances of him doing so get smaller.
A real choice Mr Corbyn apologist? Are you having a laugh? The choice the country has is between an incompetent Tory party with a highly mediocre leader that is being slowly throttled by brexit fanatics, and a labour party led by a racist anti-Semite who got 2 Es at A-level who wants Britain to follow Venezuela down the economic plughole.
This is choice, but it is of two varying degrees of self harm. It is the choice of Bedlam
Getting 2 Es at A level in 1967 would certainly be the equivalent of 2Cs today given that 30% of pupils sitting the exam faile to reach the lowest Pass grade at that time. Nowadays a mere 2.5% fail to achieve at least an E grade. Academically Corbyn is more qualified than John Major and James Callaghan.
Brexit is an example of English anti-intellectualism.
More likely, Brexit is an example of intellectuals failing to understand they need to make the case for intellectualism.
Can't see people suddenly being persuaded of the merits of intellectualism. The hostility is generations old. It has served us well until now, particularly in terms of keeping the hard left away from government.
Arguably though under Corbyn socialism has mutated to appeal to anti intellectuals.
A real choice Mr Corbyn apologist? Are you having a laugh? The choice the country has is between an incompetent Tory party with a highly mediocre leader that is being slowly throttled by brexit fanatics, and a labour party led by a racist anti-Semite who got 2 Es at A-level who wants Britain to follow Venezuela down the economic plughole.
This is choice, but it is of two varying degrees of self harm. It is the choice of Bedlam
Getting 2 Es at A level in 1967 would certainly be the equivalent of 2Cs today given that 30% of pupils sitting the exam faile to reach the lowest Pass grade at that time. Nowadays a mere 2.5% fail to achieve at least an E grade. Academically Corbyn is more qualified than John Major and James Callaghan.
To be fair to Callaghan, Wikipedia says that " He gained the Senior Oxford Certificate in 1929, but could not afford entrance to university and instead sat the Civil Service entrance exam.’ Which he passed, because he went on to become a tax inspector.
Chris Evans to leave R2. Wonder if he is another that wouldn't take a pay cut?
Another uselesss overpaid tw**, good riddance. BBC certainly needs a clearout of overpaid under talented staff. Time they were made to compete for their cushy numbers.
The one thing you can say about Chris Evans is that he doesn't appear on TV channels run for the propaganda purposes of a foreign despot like a certain ex-leader of the SNP. As I said the other day, the SNP has a pretty nasty history of providing succour to fascist regimes, so I suppose you could say that Salmond is being consistent in that particular tradition.
Big leap there from an unfunny DJ to politics. You obviously haev a grudge against SNP and Salmond, and also a bit loopy on your history. Your imaginary "succour to fascist regimes" where reality is the Tories and their propaganda sheet the Daly Heil were right in among it is ignored. Go read your hsitory books and get real.
I think you need to read your history and get honest about what nationalism actually means , but then maybe you are not worried about Salmond working for RT and the SNP's one time support for the Axis powers. The clue is in the name.
Like religion, nationalism can be either good or bad.
That is moral relativism, though it may be your view. I can see no evidence of nationalism delivering anything good in modern history. Patriotism yes, nationalism no.
Nationalism resulted in the independence of the Eastern European nations from Soviet control. I'd regard that as a good thing.
A good example, though it may be more subtle than that, and be related to politics and the oppression of a foreign power. Then comes the subtle difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't think the Eastern European countries deemed themselves to be "superior" to others, which is a generally accepted requirement for nationalism.
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
A real choice Mr Corbyn apologist? Are you having a laugh? The choice the country has is between an incompetent Tory party with a highly mediocre leader that is being slowly throttled by brexit fanatics, and a labour party led by a racist anti-Semite who got 2 Es at A-level who wants Britain to follow Venezuela down the economic plughole.
This is choice, but it is of two varying degrees of self harm. It is the choice of Bedlam
Getting 2 Es at A level in 1967 would certainly be the equivalent of 2Cs today given that 30% of pupils sitting the exam faile to reach the lowest Pass grade at that time. Nowadays a mere 2.5% fail to achieve at least an E grade. Academically Corbyn is more qualified than John Major and James Callaghan.
Major passed tough banking exams, Callaghan the Oxford Certificate and civil service exams
Alanbrooke: "I thought patriots were scoundrels in their last refuge ?"
No, Samuel Johnson was referring to the type of person who, when all other rational argument has been exhausted resorts to patriotism as their last defence. Sounds a bit like a lot of Brexiters I have spoken to.
A real choice Mr Corbyn apologist? Are you having a laugh? The choice the country has is between an incompetent Tory party with a highly mediocre leader that is being slowly throttled by brexit fanatics, and a labour party led by a racist anti-Semite who got 2 Es at A-level who wants Britain to follow Venezuela down the economic plughole.
This is choice, but it is of two varying degrees of self harm. It is the choice of Bedlam
Getting 2 Es at A level in 1967 would certainly be the equivalent of 2Cs today given that 30% of pupils sitting the exam faile to reach the lowest Pass grade at that time. Nowadays a mere 2.5% fail to achieve at least an E grade. Academically Corbyn is more qualified than John Major and James Callaghan.
Major passed tough banking exams, Callaghan the Oxford Certificate and civil service exams
..and Major and Callaghan did not go to one of the top Grammar schools in the country and previously a fee paying prep school. Corbyn really is a dullard
Comments
Of course one way around that is to brand one's nationalism as patriotism.
edit: lolz!
I've changed my mind on a number of issues, in response to posts from the more thoughtful posters on this site.
So how do you plan to win a second referendum?
That is the 'big idea' isn't it?
And on a lower level, apparently forgetting that postal votes,m of which there are a great many, are cast a long while before the election day itself.
Meanwhile, about Brexit...
This article nicely articulates the fundamental difference between patriotism and it's ugly sister nationalism:
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/sudhanva-d-shetty/patriotism-nationalism-a-_b_9354822.html
I think 'complacency' was the biggest issue and the mis-placed assumption that voters 'wouldn't let go of nurse'.
They should have approached it as if they were advocating joining the EU - and focussed on its benefits. Compared trading with the EU with trading with the US, for example.
Talking of 'benefits' the UK's non-contributary benefits system was another 'problem' (entirely within our control) that successive governments have ducked tackling - which added to the perception of 'unfairness' (although most EU workers put in more than they take out).
The Brexit vote was a long time in the making - it didn't just happen on Cameron's watch - he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.
Why do YOU think Remain lost?
One of my complaints about Brexit (there are many) is that it confuses "can" with "will" - the assumption that just because we could negotiate better deals then they would inevitably happen. It doesn't work like that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash
The research doesn't look muxh into the political affiliations of the abusers.
May is getting less abuse than Cameron did - Boris seems to be getting as much as her (or more).
Nothing lasts for ever, but there's been a rock solid Indy/SNP bloc since 2014. Brexit, even at this late stage, is the wild card.
You're still very shy in offering any analysis yourself, preferring to criticise other posters - why not write what YOU think?
https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/1036554498125258752
Gordo was a National embarrassment. Cringeworthy every single day. And BoZo is not fit to lick his boots.
On the questions of Brexit, UK politics, and the difficulties of the two main parties, what can we expect to happen next? A few thoughts:
1. I'm not convinced Chequers is as dead as it looks. We can discount Michel Barnier's remarks to a large degree - he's hardly going to say 'Wow, this is absolutely splendid', is he? And if I were cynical, I might even wonder whether saying how difficult it is for the EU to accept it might be a deliberate ploy to help Theresa May get it through parliament.
On the UK side, it's all very well both sides trashing Chequers, and it's true that few MPs are enamoured of it. However, as Damian Green and others have pointed out, whilst there's no obvious parliamentary majority in favour of it, there's an even bigger majority against either the ERG 'no deal' route or the alternative of abandoning Brexit in name or de facto. So, if the government hangs together and manages to reach some deal with the EU, parliament won't simply be able to say 'Nah, don't like this', they will have to vote either explicitly or implicitly for something else - most likely no deal at all. Are Vince Cable, Chukka Umanna, Keir Starmer, and the SNP going to join JRM and the ERGers in doing that? Strange bedfellows indeed, who could only come together if they all reach massively incompatible conclusions about what would follow from their vote. So, when push comes to shove, I'd expect a series of MPs to stand up to say 'This is not my favoured outcome, but I'm going to vote for it because the alternative is completely unacceptable'.
2. The crucial caveat in the above is 'if the government hangs together'. Clearly Boris and his unlikely supporters amongst the ultras (who clearly haven't remembered his track record of self-contradiction) are going to have a go at toppling Theresa May, but to what end? It won't alter the parlimentary arithmetic. Is a harder Brexit suddenly going to attract support from Labour, the SNP, and Sarah Wollaston just because Boris is at the dispatch box rather than May? Alternatively, things could get so destabilised that there's an early election, very probably reducing the strength of the hard Brexiteers, possibly even to the extent of putting Corbyn into No 10.
On both points 1 and 2, TINA rules.
3. As for Labour, it's too late now for Corbyn to head off the anti-Semitism row. Even if the party belatedly accepts the disputed international definition of anti-Semitism, it's too little, too late, and would simply invite a stream of articles and speeches pointing out that Corbyn's own past words and actions are unambiguously anti-Semitic under the code.
No.
Gordon Brown, for all his flaws, has a hinterland of belief in improving the lot of others (child poverty, for one), and however misguided he may sometimes be, I don't doubt his sincerity.
Boris is a vulgar charlatan, pitilessly exposed by the high office May thrust him into. And people say she 'isn't good at politics'.
New investment in plant in the UK is virtually non existent while people wait. Our industry is operating at close to 100% capacity and no-one adding new capacity.
Tax authorities very focused on finding money. They phone ahead of time to check we paying our monthly taxes on time.
The NHS is still short of money to pay suppliers and certain hospitals credit scores are junk grade. Many senior staff in 50s clock watching until they can get their pension and move on. Played golf with one on Saturday and the talk was all about pensions the same with my brother the week before who is dean of surgery at major SE England hospital. Morale appears really low.
It is semi ironic that the major thrust of the Scottish Tory campaign last Scottish election was that the SNP were too focused on independence rather than doing what was good for Scotland. This campaign was a big success
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
It's pretty difficult to have patriotism without a nation...
Also the wings beckon for Barnier, he's hoping to get a deal that's ready for the heads of government but the importance of the 'technical' to the 'political' is shifting in favour of the latter. Of course it could all still go horribly wrong - and I'd reckon the chances of it going wrong on our end are higher than the EU's - but Boris is all piss & wind (mainly wind).
Scotland, interestingly, has a population and economy very close in size to Yorkshire. (Both are renowned for having tight-fisted inhabitants too...).
What we need now is a bold and tough negotiator.
Step one: Start from a WTO position, paying the EU zero divorce bill.
I have said several times, by pandering to xenophobia, lying about public spending and whipping up anti-foreigner sentiment Leave managed to secure the narrow majority it needed with the most disgusting campaign in modern British history. It really is that simple.
Awesome...
As my team hasn't been in the top flight for 20 years I am used to it!
Yes LEAVE's campaign was inglorious - but refusing to face up to the deficiencies of REMAIN's campaign will not help the cause in the future. I find it wiser to learn from my failures, than dismiss them as 'the other side cheated'.
Remember I had my biggest betting pay day ever on Brexit so I had more than a hunch things would go wrong. Sadly pandering to racism and xenophobia works, depressing as that is.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/02/falklands-flap-loss-eu-funding-penguins-brexit/
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/theresa-may-has-numbers-problem-brexit-boris-johnson-s-bigger
Arguably though under Corbyn socialism has mutated to appeal to anti intellectuals.
So far the Boris and JRM camp don't seem to have an answer at all.
No, Samuel Johnson was referring to the type of person who, when all other rational argument has been exhausted resorts to patriotism as their last defence. Sounds a bit like a lot of Brexiters I have spoken to.