This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It's not a noble idea. It's an idea that appeals to people who enjoy violence and are good at it. That's why communist societies are good at waging war.
This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.
All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.
I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).
But who do they to replace May with ?
I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.
EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.
And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).
The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!
And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!
Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:
Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab
In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.
I think Gove is a good bet.
He may be a good bet, but a bad choice. A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
Michael Gove.
For all our sakes hopefully not that lying snake oil salesman
I'm not even sure that Michael Gove believes in it anymore. After-all, he might be a complete tosser, but he isn't entirely stupid.
My earphones stopped working recently. I had to buy a new pair. Twenty million people didn't end up dead, with millions more consigned to slave labour.
David Miliband was last matched for next Prime Minister at 44, despite not being an MP or even in this country. For comparison, Chuka Umunna MP, spokesman for the nascent TIGs, was last matched at 75.
This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Agreed. A completely hopeless and inappropriate metaphor. The apologists for Communism seem to be similar to the apologists for Corbyn's Labour/Momentum apologists for anti-Semitism
Good to see the EU and Barnier getting a battering on the BBC comments. It does feel like the tide is turning and people realise they are in no way being constructive in these negotiations and are even making Mrs May look flexible.
I thought the (to paraphrase)
'Report back to us within 48 hours with new and acceptable solutions'
comment that was splashed about yesterday was presented in a way that made the EU look arrogant and inflexible. Not what they should be doing if they have any interest in public perception of the EU, even if they are exasperated.
How many times do you think they need to spell out to the UK morons negotiating what their position is and ask them to come back with something that a 2 year old could manage.
This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.
All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.
I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).
But who do they to replace May with ?
I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.
EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.
And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).
The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!
And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!
Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:
Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab
In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.
I think Gove is a good bet.
He may be a good bet, but a bad choice. A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM
Considering how the Blair and Cameron premierships ended, perhaps we should recalibrate our scales before weighing good prime ministers.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.
All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.
I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).
But who do they to replace May with ?
I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.
EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.
And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).
The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!
And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!
Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:
Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab
In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.
I think Gove is a good bet.
There’s someone very ostentatiously trying to occupy that ground at the moment who you haven’t mentioned.
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
This rather overstates the horror that most people on the left feel about ex-Communists. Nowadays Communist parties barely exist and few people care whether someone used to support them - it's like previously believing in Santa, as Healey put it. There is little in the abstract concept that left-wingers would disagree with in principle (from each according to ability, to each according to need - the way one personally should try to live and treat one's family and friends, IMO), but we varied in how quickly we noticed that it doesn't work in government. I still find the Morning Star quite useful (and they are nowadays not a mouthpiece for one party but for any old left-wing faction) because they cover issues that few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
Good to see the EU and Barnier getting a battering on the BBC comments. It does feel like the tide is turning and people realise they are in no way being constructive in these negotiations and are even making Mrs May look flexible.
I thought the (to paraphrase)
'Report back to us within 48 hours with new and acceptable solutions'
comment that was splashed about yesterday was presented in a way that made the EU look arrogant and inflexible. Not what they should be doing if they have any interest in public perception of the EU, even if they are exasperated.
How many times do you think they need to spell out to the UK morons negotiating what their position is and ask them to come back with something that a 2 year old could manage.
To the people negotiating as often as they like. I'm not convinced the way they do it in public helps the path they wish to follow.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
l.
I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.
All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.
I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).
But who do they to replace May with ?
I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.
EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.
And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).
The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!
And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!
Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:
Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab
In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.
I think Gove is a good bet.
He may be a good bet, but a bad choice. A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM
Considering how the Blair and Cameron premierships ended, perhaps we should recalibrate our scales before weighing good prime ministers.
No doubt they both screwed up, but both head and shoulders above May / Brown.
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
It's because such systems need an enemy: the systems are supposed to be perfect, so if there are problems then it must be the fault of others. And better if it is a group, so you can make everyone gang up against them. And who better than Jews, who are relatively small in number and who have suffered from such libels for a thousand years?
Which I think is part of what's going on at the moment within some in Labour - and I wonder if Corbyn falls into this, e.g. with his inherent anti-Americanism.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.
I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
Careful. There's a test case before an employment tribunal which may result in veganism becoming a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46385597
That's really good news. Next step: get 'gastronome' registered as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so that it becomes a breach of my human rights not to serve me excellent food and fine claret.
Corbyn's anti-Semitism is either conscious or unconscious prejudice. Old fashioned lefties like him see Jews as being associated with international capitalism, and therefore to be despised. It is a bit like many UKIPers who think all Muslim's have a secret desire to be suicide bombers. It is all bonkers, like most prejudice, but it clearly exists, particularly among those who hold extreme or reactionary views.
Sadly he wont necessarily be looking at the man who is ultimately and genuinely responsible, Jeremy Corbyn
Taking out Formby might be viewed as a necessary step to removing Corbyn. With the slight issue that unless the rules are changed, her replacement is likely to be cut from similar cloth.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
Careful. There's a test case before an employment tribunal which may result in veganism becoming a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46385597
That's really good news. Next step: get 'gastronome' registered as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so that it becomes a breach of my human rights not to serve me excellent food and fine claret.
Like those "any dietary requests?" Yes, Bolly and smoked salmon pls.
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
The recent experiences in Labour with the AS debacle is in a way a mini example of how the pursuit of purity in the doctrine (Communism / Fascism) blinds followers to the horrors that are committed to achieve that purity.
While we are not talking of genocide, deaths or murders, the acceptance of AS at many layers of Labour show how the unacceptable becomes accepted and how the fringe elements push the levels of AS in the organisation further into the realms of unacceptability (to normal people) which becomes normality in the organisation through peer pressure, usage and sheer volume of repetition.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
OT this morning as I waited for a bus, my eyes moved between the sign saying this was an Accredited Secure Station and the railings immediately outside with their flowers and balloons marking the spot where a young man was murdered last week.
The Telegraph's sketchwriter on Theresa May blaming Labour: As the Tory roars subsided, I read over my notes, to make sure I’d summarised her point correctly. If Labour hired lots of policemen, we’d end up having to sack lots of policemen, so it was better to sack lots of policemen in order to avoid having to sack the policemen we hired to replace the policemen we sacked. No, hang on. That didn’t sound right. Try again. Ending austerity would cause austerity, so to avoid austerity we had to continue austerity. No, that couldn’t be it. One more go. By spending—
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.
I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.
No, but we're not talking about a 'collective alternative to capitalism'; we're talking about communism - which is just one alternative.
As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?
Sadly he wont necessarily be looking at the man who is ultimately and genuinely responsible, Jeremy Corbyn
I suppose the hope is to dismantle his support network he has built around him.
The prospect of that happening might keep a few more in the tent. For now. I think Lord Falconer's role is pivotal. If he finds the system has been rigged to prevent clear-cut anti-semites being removed from membership (as it currently looks like from the outside), then there have to be significant resignations. Of course, Corbyn willl fight to the last to prevent that. On one side the membership. On the other - the MPs.
Unstoppable object, say hello to irresistible force.....
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
I've read here that if the Deal passes May should then resign and let a 'true believer' do future negotiations.
But which 'true believer' is willing to do the work and take the responsibility, to do the proper preparation and give the necessary attention to detail.
I don't believe that. I think if the WA passes, May will be lauded as the new incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and the ERG, having tasted the public mood of relief and adulation, will come crawling for her forgiveness and mercy.
All talk of her walking away will disappear like the morning mist on a summer's day and she will bask in the glow of the affection of the Mail, Express, Sun and (apparently) all right-thinking British people everywhere.
I think the relevant Conservative MPs suspect that as well, hence the briefings about getting a commitment from her to step down in order to win their vote for the MV (MV3, by the sounds of it).
But who do they to replace May with ?
I don't think they know, which is because I don't think the desire to replace her is that much to do with Brexit either.
EDIT: plus of course that wing doesn't necessarily have enough votes to get whichever candidate onto the ballot paper anyway.
And I don't think the membership are blindly going to vote for the "most Brexit" candidate - though there are certain Remainer candidates whom I believe would almost certainly lose regardless of opponent (a la Ken Clarke).
The Leave victory at EUref may have led to an early "Brexit" for England in Euro2016, but it inspired Wales to reach the semis, and perhaps even more importantly, it inspired Team GB at both the 2016 Olympics and the Paralympics to unparalleled gold medal glory!
And let's not forget England's semi-final appearance at World Cup 2018!
Regarding the next Con leader, I would divide the contenders into 4 categories:
Hardline remainers e.g. Greening, Rudd Pragmatic remainers e.g. Javed, Hunt Pragmatic leavers e.g. Gove, Leadsom Hardline leavers e.g. Boris, Raab
In my view, the MPs will block a hardline leaver and the members will never vote for a hardline remainer sio we are left with the middle 2 categories.
I think Gove is a good bet.
There’s someone very ostentatiously trying to occupy that ground at the moment who you haven’t mentioned.
Williamson? I think he fancies himself as a leadership candidate but I can't see it happening.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.
I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.
No, but we're not talking about a 'collective alternative to capitalism'; we're talking about communism - which is just one alternative.
As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?
Well, but then we're arguing about names and definitions, and maybe when I think of Communism I think of something a bit broader than the Leninist tradition.
I still always laugh at that photo, and what must have been the process behind the scenes that led it to happen. (For those who don't know, it was for a TV comedy show).
At what point in the process did his handlers think it might be a bad idea, and did they fall for old excuse that the production company had already rented the ermine coat and the Bentley so it would be poor form to cancel it at a late stage?
I'm not sure they've come around to the bad idea way of thinking quite yet, more at the that went well stage.
I don't know if older people would react negatively to that kind of thing but the last leg tends to have a younger audience (I assume anyway) or at least one more towards that way of thinking.
Agreed. I think it worked very well. Sure, it went down poorly with Tories with a sense of humour bypass, but as you imply, play to your audience!
Anything which makes Corbyn look less angry and humourless puts a bold tick in the pro column for me. The reputational risk would come if it emerged he'd been spending dodgily-claimed expenses on luxury cars or fur coats. I'd probably take that chance if I was on Team Corbyn.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Theresa May's deal is leaving.
Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Ah, the old "give me everything I want otherwise I'll vote for Nazis" argument. Never fails to win hearts and minds.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Theresa May's deal is leaving.
Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it
Irrelevant to your contention.
First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Theresa May's deal is leaving.
Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it
Irrelevant to your contention.
First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.
yes a deal she knows will never in a month of Sundays be passed, she ignored her Brexit ministers and Canada Plus options, and settled for a crap deal, and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if she intentionally kept quiet during the referendum campaign as a back up plan should remain fail to win, to ensure we never leave the EU. She speaks with forked tongue. Still - what did we expect, the establishment were always going to win.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Theresa May's deal is leaving.
Theresa Mays deal will never pass parliament and she knows it
Irrelevant to your contention.
First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.
yes a deal she knows will never in a month of Sundays be passed, she ignored her Brexit ministers and Canada Plus options, and settled for a crap deal, and TBH I wouldn't be surprised if she intentionally kept quiet during the referendum campaign as a back up plan should remain fail to win, to ensure we never leave the EU. She speaks with forked tongue. Still - what did we expect, the establishment were always going to win.
You mean the Jacob Rees-Mogg/Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage establishment cabal?
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring, Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability? Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
Heath was arguably the one with the most lasting influence, in his flagship policy of joining Europe.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
Military spending rose sharply between 1980-86, although it was certainly cut sharply as the Cold War ended.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
May was never a true believer in Leave, but she was a true believer in her ability to get rid of the backstop.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
I don't think it is required. In principle compared to capitalism where a small minority exert control over a majority, you would expect the rule of the majority over the minority to be inherently less violent.
I think all communist regimes that I recall tend to be run by a very small minority, and often with a "hard man" as leader.
Yes. That looks like a contradiction with the ideology, rather than an inherent characteristic of it.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
I think that the ideology that you are seeking is anarcho-syndicalism.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
I think it's a theory that will always corrupt people into abhorrent acts if they get power. That's why it's more dangerous than fascism: people believe there's a veneer of good around it, yet it always ends in evil. Whilst fascists are obviously shits.
Yes, there are a worrying number of people with an ends justify the means mentality on the far left, and that has been a factor.
I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.
No, but we're not talking about a 'collective alternative to capitalism'; we're talking about communism - which is just one alternative.
As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?
Well, but then we're arguing about names and definitions, and maybe when I think of Communism I think of something a bit broader than the Leninist tradition.
But that Leninist tradition *is* Communism. You may argue there are other ways of doing it that have not been tried, but I fear any system you nominally come up with will fall into all the same traps that we saw in the USSR, Cambodia, DPK, and in China in the 1960s (I'd argue that China is not currently a Communist state, but a curious hybrid).
So the deal honours the referendum . The UK will be leaving . It’s only because the ERG nutjobs are now telling the masses that the deal isn’t a pure enough Brexit that we hear this endless whining over betrayal .
Most Leavers seem to just follow like Borg Drones what the right wing press and ERG tell them to believe .
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
Ah, the old "give me everything I want otherwise I'll vote for Nazis" argument. Never fails to win hearts and minds.
I am not saying I would vote far right. But the very reason leave won in the first place was because tin eared politicians of all parties for decades have ignored the silent majority, refused to discuss real issues like immigration and dismiss genuine concerns from the people labelling them as little Englanders and racist, refusing referendum promises on Lisbon, and neglecting to help those left behind by globalisation, and giving more and more of our sovereignty away, year on year, to eventually bring us to accept ever closer union and end the nation state. Democracy in the UK is dying
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
It doesn’t always work. I’ve been avoiding Gillette since their “be a better man” lecture, but they’re lucky because there aren’t many good alternative razor products on the market. As their prices will attest to.
These idiots are actually surprised given the mess they are making of the country.
Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting online abuse of a woman politician is acceptable if they are Tory?
What I am saying is that these morons are useless , they are wrecking the country, put only themselves and party first and should not be surprised that people are angry and hurl abuse at them. The fact they are Tories is irrelevant other than fact that they are the nasty self seeking cretins currently doing the wrecking. Opposition , hapless Lib Dems should expect the same as they again have no interest in the country but just plot to enrich themselves and push their party interests. If they do not like it stop taking the huge amounts from the public purse or start acting in the interests of the people as they were elected to do. Personally I think they get away with far too easy a life in UK given their incompetence and f***wittery.
Interesting quote from Phil Hammond in Paul Waugh's update:
"The Labour Party has been talking for a long time about the idea of a customs union grafted onto the PM’s deal. Those of my colleagues who feel very strongly against that proposal need to think very very hard about the implications of voting against the Prime Minister’s deal because we will then be in unknown territory where a consensus will have to be forged across the House of Commons and that will inevitably mean compromises being made."
As the Lords voted for customs union last night by a substantial margin, maybe this is moving into the frame as the front runner?
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
Communist theory does not take human nature into account. It's as simple as that.
I don't agree with that argument. I think capitalism encourages our worst impulses - selfishness, fear, etc - and in principle you could encourage our better impulses - empathy, cooperation, etc
Communism requires highly centralised control. Inevitably this hands power to a small number of people. Human nature takes it's course, as that power is sought and gained by exactly the *wrong* people to have it.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
I think communism requires highly localised control. If the individual does not have control over their own work then they are not free. It requires cooperation over large scales, but centralisation is a danger.
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
And as we've seen within the party, he is rather partial to cronyism and nepotism. The state managers would be political animals, not businessmen/women, and the organisations would rapidly deteriorate. Remember British Rail?
In defence of British Rail, they did a reasonable job at efficiently running the network given the constraints they were under. They were far from perfect, and had too much of a negative, shrinking attitude: but they could have been much worse.
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
Oh, right. Like all those people who voted Leave to maximise our chances of eventually joining the Euro?
He has a consistent record of arguing that “flirting with a future outside” would increase our influence, and during the referendum campaign he argued against invoking article 50. Watch this from 15:20.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
You’re relying on something he said in an article several years ago.
Many people’s “plans” have changed since then, including Boris’s, Theresa’s and countless others.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
I seemed to remember there was an article on BBC website the other day saying that lots of fashion brands were using this idea of encouraging controversy to generate publicity.
It doesn’t always work. I’ve been avoiding Gillette since their “be a better man” lecture, but they’re lucky because there aren’t many good alternative razor products on the market. As their prices will attest to.
weaselly words to cover her nastiness. As ever with Tories, she will not do the right thing but keep her nose firmly in the trough.
Classic non-apology. Apologise for the offence caused rather than for what she said, say that her "language" was wrong rather than the content of what she was saying.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
yes Brexit has been successfully thwarted , parliament has successfully blocked the will of the people, the establishment has yet again stitched up the longsuffering British people, I hope they understand the damage they are creating for this country and its democracy by ignoring the vote of 17.4 million people. If we don't leave and take back control of our borders, laws and money then, I and many like me will never vote for any mainstream party again, and I suspect the more extreme and populist parties will replace the mainstream who ignores the silent majority. I am sure Theresa May is a sleeper agent for the EU / Remain, and getting the worst of all deals has been her gameplan from the beginning
I don’t think she is. I think she’s someone who on balance backed Remain and took ownership of the Leave mandate and is trying to honestly and tenaciously implement it as best she can. Despite personally disagreeing with the verdict she respects those who voted for it and is trying to make the best of it.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Gove’s plan was always to use the threat of leaving to get concessions from the EU. He didn’t want to invoke article 50.
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
Didn't the antisemitism and waging wars of imperial aggression occur because they were already Russian characteristics and Soviet Russia was the first Communist power? China seems to have managed without the antisemitism (insofar as they had the matériel) and their imperial aggression seems mostly of the economic type nowadays.
I always knew that mincing up vegans and turning them into sausage rolls was a good idea.
A big part of the reason for that is the viral furore on social media.
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
It backfired for Gillette. You need to know your customer base. Trying to be "woke" is no good if that offends the people who are buying your product.
What makes you say it backfired?
Comments on social media have been very hostile, and this has been backed up by market research carried out by YouGov.
This rather overstates the horrhat few other newspapers care about - oppression of trade unionists around the world, etc.
People who say they'd support a Labour government but would be highly critical friends and might vote against a particular policy are in principle fine with me (depending on the details). The position is different if someone stands on a Labour platform, gets Labour votes, but says they won't support a Labour government. I think they are deceiving the electorate, the party and themselves, and should quit.
A clarification: it's like believing in a Santa that has killed millions and not noticeably improved the world in any way. It's like believing in a Santa that is lying in a p*ss-laden gutter, eight cans of Tennants Extra lying by its side.
Communism matters, because it is an evil system wrapped up in a comfort blanket that is liked by likewise evil people and idiots.
Nope. That's ludicrous pearl-clutching hyperbole.
I much prefer (I think) Sir John Major's definition: "It's a noble idea. It just doesn't work."
It really isn't ludicrous. Communism has killed many millions - probably far more than fascism (although such counts are often ludicrous in themselves - best just to say they're both evil).
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
Fascism, in theory as well as practice, is abhorrent. Communism as practiced has been abhorrent, but the theory is not. The question for me has been whether the practice follows directly from the theory or whether this was a case of opportunists using the rhetoric to justify their personal barbarism.
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Communism requires the extermination of class enemies, so to that extent, violence is inherent in the ideology.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
Didn't the antisemitism and waging wars of imperial aggression occur because they were already Russian characteristics and Soviet Russia was the first Communist power? China seems to have managed without the antisemitism (insofar as they had the matériel) and their imperial aggression seems mostly of the economic type nowadays.
Mao conquered Tibet, and his immediate successors tried to conquer Vietnam.
Comments
Yet unlike fascism, you have people defending communism to the hilt as if it was just some youthful folly. It isn't. It's sick - and it's even more sick to compare it so something like Santa.
A doer not a leader, more on the May / Brown axis than the Blair / Cameron axis, which I think produces the better PM
My earphones stopped working recently. I had to buy a new pair. Twenty million people didn't end up dead, with millions more consigned to slave labour.
Now you are just having a laugh Dan.
One of life's imponderables, I guess.
Most of them thoroughly approve of such abuse (they mostly seem to be extreme left, rather than extreme nationalists).
Resolving this question is made more difficult because so many people excuse the practice of Communism in order to defend the theory.
Anti-semitism and waging wars of imperial aggression are not part of the theory, but seem to be part of the practice.
It was never in serious doubt. She would have been out of Downing Street toot sweet if she'd tried to pull that stunt.
Which I think is part of what's going on at the moment within some in Labour - and I wonder if Corbyn falls into this, e.g. with his inherent anti-Americanism.
I don't believe that's inevitably part of a collective alternative to capitalism.
While we are not talking of genocide, deaths or murders, the acceptance of AS at many layers of Labour show how the unacceptable becomes accepted and how the fringe elements push the levels of AS in the organisation further into the realms of unacceptability (to normal people) which becomes normality in the organisation through peer pressure, usage and sheer volume of repetition.
Whether capitalism encourages our worst impulses or not is a completely separate discussion.
The Telegraph's sketchwriter on Theresa May blaming Labour:
As the Tory roars subsided, I read over my notes, to make sure I’d summarised her point correctly. If Labour hired lots of policemen, we’d end up having to sack lots of policemen, so it was better to sack lots of policemen in order to avoid having to sack the policemen we hired to replace the policemen we sacked. No, hang on. That didn’t sound right. Try again. Ending austerity would cause austerity, so to avoid austerity we had to continue austerity. No, that couldn’t be it. One more go. By spending—
Anyway, whatever it was, she said it very confidently. So I’m sure she knew what she meant.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/tories-meant-party-law-order-happened/
As a matter of interest, am I right in saying that a pure capitalist system has never been attempted?
The prospect of that happening might keep a few more in the tent. For now. I think Lord Falconer's role is pivotal. If he finds the system has been rigged to prevent clear-cut anti-semites being removed from membership (as it currently looks like from the outside), then there have to be significant resignations. Of course, Corbyn willl fight to the last to prevent that. On one side the membership. On the other - the MPs.
Unstoppable object, say hello to irresistible force.....
Heath, ADH, MacM, May, Brown all uninspiring,
Callaghan, Major, Wilson shall we be charitable and say almost achieved acceptability?
Blair Cameron together as they had a common thread in style of government
Thatcher, love her or loath her, she was able to force you to have an opinion, and that is a plus in a PM
Of the last 11 PMs, I would suggest at least 8 were below the standard we would like.
It is a low bar
This is one reason why I'm so disappointed with Corbyn's old-fashioned calls for nationalisation, which simply replace private managers with state managers and more centralisation rather than less.
Can't think why.
First of all I happen to think the deal will pass. Second of all you criticise May for being a remainer when she has presented to parliament a deal for leaving.
Normally these leaders have to appeal to some idea of being a vanguard to justify their minority control. I don't accept that argument.
Wilson won four elections, and gave us the Open University, open homosexuality and equal pay for women; he put an end to hanging and ran a referendum without fracturing the party, let alone the country.
Mrs Thatcher decimated the armed forces and doubled inflation. She saw the first successful foreign invasion of British territory since the second world war. On the plus side, she discovered not one but two magic money trees although she squandered the proceeds on mass unemployment.
I’d have more sympathy for this viewpoint if true Brexiteers had come up with anything more than empty platitudes and rhetoric for Brexit, since none have laid out an alternative credible strategy to May’s.
The only one I’d have had confidence in to do this would be Michael Gove, but I guess we’ll never know now.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+military+spending+over+1980's&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi86ImBgfDgAhXWRhUIHQorDEEQsAR6BAgDEAE&biw=2133&bih=872#imgrc=QNJ8NoGUQef9lM:
Many brand consultants will now advise firms to do this, and encourage controversy, because it generates headlines and keeps them in the news for longer, thus driving up brand awareness and sales on both sides. I think Greggs was even prepared in advance to troll Piers Morgan about it.
I think it’s dangerous in the long term but, for now, this is becoming a pretty mainstream tactic.
To quote Bakunin:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
https://twitter.com/politicsin/status/1103626804915519488?s=21
So the deal honours the referendum . The UK will be leaving . It’s only because the ERG nutjobs are now telling the masses that the deal isn’t a pure enough Brexit that we hear this endless whining over betrayal .
Most Leavers seem to just follow like Borg Drones what the right wing press and ERG tell them to believe .
If they do not like it stop taking the huge amounts from the public purse or start acting in the interests of the people as they were elected to do.
Personally I think they get away with far too easy a life in UK given their incompetence and f***wittery.
"The Labour Party has been talking for a long time about the idea of a customs union grafted onto the PM’s deal. Those of my colleagues who feel very strongly against that proposal need to think very very hard about the implications of voting against the Prime Minister’s deal because we will then be in unknown territory where a consensus will have to be forged across the House of Commons and that will inevitably mean compromises being made."
As the Lords voted for customs union last night by a substantial margin, maybe this is moving into the frame as the front runner?
One of the things privatisation brought in was a can-do attitude that BR all too often lacked.
https://youtu.be/5NLc9i_O14Q
Many people’s “plans” have changed since then, including Boris’s, Theresa’s and countless others.