> @CatMan said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945. > > Didn't we provide quite a lot of scientific info regarding the Manhattan project? I've read that we would have developed an A-Bomb on our own by 1947.
I think it's "could have" rather than "would have".
But it would have required a massive diversion of resources away from other parts of the war effort and towards something which seemed pretty uncertain.
Until the successful Trinity test, a lot of people were doubtful it would all work as theorised. With our more limited resources, the questions would have been a lot more nagging.
Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?
As a Remainer though given the crowded field splitting the vote three ways is likely to lead to even less MEPs .
The Lib Dems deserve to be rewarded for supporting a second vote when it was a very minority position .
It would be a fair result if they came above Labour in the Euros. I think the Labour core vote is too strong, particularly when so many senior Labour figures are far less equivocal than Corbyn about them being absolutely for Remain, but it would be nice to see.
Not bad, in terms of messaging. But a bit weird that so much of it from Chuka and Heidi is pitched as a personal appeal to “you”, the voter, yet both of them for much of the time are looking off to the side of the camera.
> @IanB2 said: > > @JosiasJessop said: > > A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception? > > > > > > > > The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets. > > > > That's interesting. But we're talking about a sstrategic situation that would have been very different from what really happened in 1945. Would Operation Torch-style landings have worked without the fighting already going on in North Africa? could they even have got past Gibraltar into the Med? > > > > And without the UK and US providing support, it's hard to see Russia having been in the fight in 1945. They would either have been conquered or come to terms with Germany (and the latter would have been unlikely given Hitler's dislike of them). > > I have not seen it argued before that western support was so critical to the Soviets, who depended mostly upon throwing waves of basic infantry at the enemy relying on force of numbers. To suggest they would have collapsed without the arctic convoys is stretching things?
I dont think that a very accurate assesment of the progress of the Red Army from 1941 to 1945. It was very heavily dependent on US trucks, radios etc. It would have been impossible for the Bagration offensive of summer 1944 to have happened without.
> @isam said: > Even were we looking at such a scenario , I believe the Broadcasters would face serious difficulties. A sudden shift in poll ratings a mere few weeks prior to an election - a shift which might well be short -term anyway - should not in itself carry too much weight. It should not be Pollsters who determine whether a party merits Major rather than Minor status - but votes cast at elections. Neither of these leaders has such a track record at all in respect of the parties they now lead. > > I don’t know, if ChUK were neck and neck with Labour or the Tories I think it’d be right for Heidi Allen to debate one of them. The rules seem too inflexible to me
> @IanB2 said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche. > > > > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it. > > I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.
Quite. I also grew up,in the 1960s and 1970s and war films were ubiquitous but the older generation very rarely talked about the war. The view was that it was a terrible experience best left in the past. I cannot recall any organised remembrance events at school. I recently discovered that one of my teachers was a refugee who escaped from the nazis on one of the kinder transports, this was a complete surprise to me, these things were not generally talked about at that time. Everyone had horrific memories and they dealt with it by blocking out the past, an example we would do well to follow.
A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though...
To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance.
One common false perception seems to be that the defeated or occupied countries had it easy after the war compared to Britain. Many people think that we didn't get any Marshall plan aid, for example, when in fact we got the most of any country.
Daniel Kawczynski thought that. Other than him, I would have thought that most people who knew what the Marshall Plan was, would also know that we got a lot of it.
> @anothernick said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche. > > > > > > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it. > > > > I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict. > > Quite. I also grew up,in the 1960s and 1970s and war films were ubiquitous but the older generation very rarely talked about the war. The view was that it was a terrible experience best left in the past. I cannot recall any organised remembrance events at school. I recently discovered that one of my teachers was a refugee who escaped from the nazis on one of the kinder transports, this was a complete surprise to me, these things were not generally talked about at that time. Everyone had horrific memories and they dealt with it by blotting put the past.
Yes, very true. Few of my teachers, most of whom had wartime service, spoke much about it or made a big thing of it. Perhaps the most willing was one who had spent 3 years as a Japanese prisoner, and he was quite the peacenik.
A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though...
To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance.
One common false perception seems to be that the defeated or occupied countries had it easy after the war compared to Britain. Many people think that we didn't get any Marshall plan aid, for example, when in fact we got the most of any country.
Daniel Kawczynski thought that. Other than him, I would have thought that most people who knew what the Marshall Plan was, would also know that we got a lot of it.
It's not only him. Tom Tugendhat also wrote the same thing in print and I've heard it from people in real life.
> > A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception?
> >
> >
> >
> > The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets.
> >
> > That's interesting. But we're talking about a sstrategic situation that would have been very different from what really happened in 1945. Would Operation Torch-style landings have worked without the fighting already going on in North Africa? could they even have got past Gibraltar into the Med?
> >
> > And without the UK and US providing support, it's hard to see Russia having been in the fight in 1945. They would either have been conquered or come to terms with Germany (and the latter would have been unlikely given Hitler's dislike of them).
>
> I have not seen it argued before that western support was so critical to the Soviets, who depended mostly upon throwing waves of basic infantry at the enemy relying on force of numbers. To suggest they would have collapsed without the arctic convoys is stretching things?
I dont think that a very accurate assesment of the progress of the Red Army from 1941 to 1945. It was very heavily dependent on US trucks, radios etc. It would have been impossible for the Bagration offensive of summer 1944 to have happened without.
In addition, Germany would not have needed to worry so much about invasion from Britain via France (or even Norway), and North Africa would have released many troops. They would not have been fighting a war on several fronts and could concentrate more on Russia.
As a counter-factual, so much could have happened by 1945 that many scenarios can reasonably be contemplated.
> @Ishmael_Z said: > A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though... > > To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance. > > One common false perception seems to be that the defeated or occupied countries had it easy after the war compared to Britain. Many people think that we didn't get any Marshall plan aid, for example, when in fact we got the most of any country. > > Daniel Kawczynski thought that. Other than him, I would have thought that most people who knew what the Marshall Plan was, would also know that we got a lot of it.
I think that the harshness of post war austerity colours memories. Most European countries were off the ration more quickly, so seemed very luxurious. That was my fathers memory of the early 1950s on holiday in Brittany. It was simply more fun.
Indeed. They are just given him even more oxygen through publicity... Almost exactly like how REMAIN gave life to the £350m for the NHS claim in the referendum by keeping going on about it.
> @kle4 said: > Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?I do like some of Change UK .
The only way to unsplit the Conservative Party is deliver a Brexit that is hard enough to end FoM, but soft enough that Remainers feel heard.
Denied a European or North African base, or Arabian base, a US invasion of Continental Europe may have used Iceland as a base. IOTL we invaded Iceland to prevent the Germans doing it first.
The highest altitude bomber of the period was the B29 Superfortress. But it could still be intercepted by the fighters of the day.
British/Imperial tactics of the day were to avoid large-scale attacks on the European mainland wherever possible. Such attempts that did take place such as Dieppe were not successful and a waste of resources and lives. Such battles that did take place were on the periphery such as North Africa. Arabia and Mediterranean islands and archipelagos. Churchill recognised the need for successes hence the steady succession of raids, etc. The Americans found this unimpressive, but were then badly beaten at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass and, having learned caution, were not so lacksidasical again
One misunderstood arm of British warfare was the bombing campaign. It reflected the British approach: industrial, logical, remote, relentless and ultimately successful although not in its own terms. It never live up to Harris's hopes but did tie up so much materiel in Germany and degraded production sufficiently as to make a Russian victory in the East much more likely.
Egerton is good on this (but not for tanks) as is Hastings, obvs.
> Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?I do like some of Change UK .
The only way to unsplit the Conservative Party is deliver a Brexit that is hard enough to end FoM, but soft enough that Remainers feel heard.
It's impossible, and you of all people should know that ending FoM isn't really what drives Brexiteers.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @kle4 said: > > Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?I do like some of Change UK . > > The only way to unsplit the Conservative Party is deliver a Brexit that is hard enough to end FoM, but soft enough that Remainers feel heard.
> @viewcode said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1128025379531370496 > > > > > > She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered. > > > > Doesn't make for a good tweet though. > > > > * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax) > > Those are good points (except for your fifth: I'd question the basis for the world "likely") but nothing in those points address the question, which was "why does our victory in WW2 ensure we would come off best in a No Deal scenario?"
Together they evidence, modestly, that such of the structures, history and institutions of the UK that occasioned success in the conflicts mentioned are in some part also indicative of a country well-positioned and adapted to carving its own path on the world stage.
For the record, though, I don't think a country's successful military history is strongly positively correlated with it's ability to deal with constitutional and trading changes of the sort we face. I'm just giving an example of a better answer.
> > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
>
> Didn't we provide quite a lot of scientific info regarding the Manhattan project? I've read that we would have developed an A-Bomb on our own by 1947.
I think it's "could have" rather than "would have".
But it would have required a massive diversion of resources away from other parts of the war effort and towards something which seemed pretty uncertain.
Until the successful Trinity test, a lot of people were doubtful it would all work as theorised. With our more limited resources, the questions would have been a lot more nagging.
From my reading of this, we gave them some critical information and kit via the work of the Maud Committee (*) that saved them years. With that information the Americans soon massively outpaced our efforts in the UK and Canada - and then cut us out of information on their progress for a while ...
(*) The reason behind the name was rather odd. AIUI the name of an obscure and unimportant housekeeper contributed to the paranoia that led to the Manhattan Project ...
> @Drutt said: > > @viewcode said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1128025379531370496 > > > > > > > > > > > > She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered. > > > > > > > > Doesn't make for a good tweet though. > > > > > > > > * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax) > > > > Those are good points (except for your fifth: I'd question the basis for the world "likely") but nothing in those points address the question, which was "why does our victory in WW2 ensure we would come off best in a No Deal scenario?" > > Together they evidence, modestly, that such of the structures, history and institutions of the UK that occasioned success in the conflicts mentioned are in some part also indicative of a country well-positioned and adapted to carving its own path on the world stage. > > For the record, though, I don't think a country's successful military history is strongly positively correlated with it's ability to deal with constitutional and trading changes of the sort we face. I'm just giving an example of a better answer.
Hmm, not seeing much recent evidence that our structures and institutions and perhaps even people are up to the job any more!
Here, this is the nub of it. Farage and fans are a last desperate gasp of the over 60s nostalgia brigade who seem to believe they were actually involved in the Empire and the War. Despite the fact you need to be over 90 to have actually fought.
They don't want reality, they want a prelapsarian dream.
Given all the Tory voters deserting the party for the LibDems and Greens, it’s rather more than lack of delivery. In their case, delivery will make things worse still.
5% of 2017 Tories to vote LD 2% of 2017 Tories to vote Green 62% of 2017 Tories to vote Brexit Party
Lib Dems are taking 21% of Labour votes.
Lib Dems are mostly profiting from remainer in-fighting, and that's mostly centred on London.
Labour, by contrast to the Tories, have shipped 13% of their vote to UKIP/Brexit Party.
Labour are losing more to leave than the Tories are to remain.
Ah, Hunt, one of the invisible men of the Cabinet, except when it is leadership speculation time. I wonder what his plan for Brexit is.
I believe he is now a No Dealer.
Given parliament has demonstrated that is the only thing they will cobble a majority to try to prevent that is not so much a plan as a goal. Annoy the French so even if parliament forces the gov to ask for an extension we don't get one perhaps?
> @rottenborough said: > Hunt is certainly going for it. As those of us on at 100/1 will be pleased to see (speaking for our wallets): > > https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128040292291104774 Given Boris, Raab, Gove and Javid all beat Hunt in the last Conservative Home Tory members poll head to head he has a lot of ground to makeup and given the Tories' dire current ratings and the threat of the Brexit Party hard to see either he or Javid have much of a chance now, for most members only a Leaver will do
If there is a fairly early GE. And Tories go all out Hard Brexit to stop Farage, and Labour are still led by Jeremy 'I don't want to say it, but I've hated the EU since 1970' Corbyn.
> @williamglenn said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945. > > Germany might not have declared war on the USA in the first place in those circumstances.
Germany never really wanted to declare war on Britain either, if Halifax not Churchill had succeeded Chamberlain Hitler would have done a deal with the British Empire that if it stayed neutral and allowed the Nazis to occupy continental Europe Germany would not try and invade Britain.
Ah, Hunt, one of the invisible men of the Cabinet, except when it is leadership speculation time. I wonder what his plan for Brexit is.
I believe he is now a No Dealer.
Given parliament has demonstrated that is the only thing they will cobble a majority to try to prevent that is not so much a plan as a goal. Annoy the French so even if parliament forces the gov to ask for an extension we don't get one perhaps?
Disruption to the grand plans and schemes of the european integrationists and empire builders is the method most likely to yield leave.
> @rottenborough said: > If there is a fairly early GE. And Tories go all out Hard Brexit to stop Farage, and Labour are still led by Jeremy 'I don't want to say it, but I've hated the EU since 1970' Corbyn. > > Then maybe the LD will surprise?
Boris could win a majority in that instance if he squeezes the Brexit Party and the LDs eat into the Corbyn Labour vote
> @Mexicanpete said: > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide. > > Labour really are ******!
> @thecommissioner said: > Given all the Tory voters deserting the party for the LibDems and Greens, it’s rather more than lack of delivery. In their case, delivery will make things worse still. > > 5% of 2017 Tories to vote LD > 2% of 2017 Tories to vote Green > 62% of 2017 Tories to vote Brexit Party > > Lib Dems are taking 21% of Labour votes. > > Lib Dems are mostly profiting from remainer in-fighting, and that's mostly centred on London. > > Labour, by contrast to the Tories, have shipped 13% of their vote to UKIP/Brexit Party. > > Labour are losing more to leave than the Tories are to remain.
Opinium's latest poll for the European Parliament elections had more Tory voters being Remainers than Leavers given so many Tory Leavers will be voting Brexit Party at those elections.
> @Mexicanpete said: > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide. > > Labour really are ******!
Farage does not want to do pacts with the Tories (bar a few diehard No Dealers like Francois and Patel), he wants to destroy the Tories and replace them as the main party of the right with his Brexit Party.
Mind you he wants to do the same to Labour in its Leave seats in the North, the Midlands and South Wales.
Farage now seems himself as the Alex Salmond of England and he wants the 2 main parties for lunch
So, the Tories are shedding their Leavers (c two thirds of them), whilst holding on to many of their Remainers. Labour Remainers (c two thirds of them) are peeling off at a rapid rate, whilst retaining many of their Leavers. It is some tribute to the political skills of the two main parties that they have managed to thoroughly piss off the bulk of their erstwhile supporters.
> @Mexicanpete said: > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide. > > Labour really are ******!
Not going to happen, not least because the Brexit party is a one trick pony.
> @Mexicanpete said: > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide. > > Labour really are ******!
There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > > > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945. > > > > Germany might not have declared war on the USA in the first place in those circumstances. > > Germany never really wanted to declare war on Britain either, if Halifax not Churchill had succeeded Chamberlain Hitler would have done a deal with the British Empire that if it stayed neutral and allowed the Nazis to occupy continental Europe Germany would not try and invade Britain.
Hitler being renowned for keeping to the strict letter of any agreement.
> @viewcode said: > > @Mexicanpete said: > > > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide. > > > > > > Labour really are ******! > > > > Not going to happen, not least because the Brexit party is a one trick pony. > > If they are so incompetent, then why are they doing so well in the polls?
I didn't say they are incompetent, I said that they are a one trick pony.
Their policy is immediate No Deal Brexit. After that they have no policy, and they do not for any other issue.
> Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> Labour really are ******!
There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
If the Conservatives are reduced to a pact with Brexit, there's no guarantee they would come out on top. Such a deal may end up with more Brexit MPs than Con.
It just struck me: this is the domestic manifestation of "they need us so much we can make our own deal", isn't it? Having catastrophically failed with Europe, they are now repeating the same mistake with the Brexit party. Lord above, what is the point...
> @GIN1138 said: > > @isam said: > > They are obsessed with Farage > > > > https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1128036121915600896 > > Indeed. They are just given him even more oxygen through publicity... Almost exactly like how REMAIN gave life to the £350m for the NHS claim in the referendum by keeping going on about it. > > Three years on they've learned nothing.
Indeed. How about leafleting, organising meetings, putting out a manifesto, etc. The Tories have totally vacated the field of battle. Labour has entered it with all the enthusiasm of a Christian v Lion headliner at the Coliseum. CHUK seem terminally averse to elections of any kind. No surprise Farage is hoovering up. He, at least seems like he wants it. (Albeit what he wants is a seat at a table he claims to despise). The LDs and Greens do too Tbf.
Interesting to note the divergence in Lab>>LD Remain switchers.
UK wide (incl London) = 21% London = 30%
Labour still cruising home with BAME voters in London - 53% to Lib Dems 16.
The Lib Dem vote drops from 27% in inner London to 17% in outer.
Which is why of course Labour moving towards ‘hard Remain’ would be mad. They are losing votes precisely where they don’t need them in a GE, and they are not loosing as many votes where they do need them.
Interesting to note the divergence in Lab>>LD Remain switchers.
UK wide (incl London) = 21% London = 30%
Labour still cruising home with BAME voters in London - 53% to Lib Dems 16.
The Lib Dem vote drops from 27% in inner London to 17% in outer.
Which is why of course Labour moving towards ‘hard Remain’ would be mad. They are losing votes precisely where they don’t need them in a GE, and they are not loosing as many votes where they do need them.
What’s killing Labour is mealy-mouthed fence-sitting.
Inspired by some earlier posts, I did a Monte Carlo simulation of the SE region given the national Europe polling figures, to try to work out the boundaries for gaining an extra seat. I'm in a bit of a tired fug to be honest, so I won't swear by these figures, but after 100,000 iterations, a clear pattern is apparent.
In a ten-seat region like this, the boundaries are approx: 0% = 0 seats 7.4% = 1 seat 14.9% = 2 seats 22.2% = 3 seats 29.2% = 4 seats 36.9% = 5 seats
I've no doubt these figures would look very different if the field size was different. Half the seats on 37% is a good indicator that those who say that this system is as close to FPTP as it is to "proper" PR have a point.
It has also brought to my attention the notion (perhaps this was obvious to others) that the smaller parties like the Greens and the Conservatives can really affect how many seats the larger parties like Labour can get. Without even changing the larger party percentages, if you had CON 12% UKP 6%, that's one seat between them. But if you have CON 9% UKP 9%, that's two seats. That seat is most likely to be plucked from BP or LAB. The uncertainty increases with vote share, so BP votes could end up being worth less than Ukip ones, and Labour worth less than Green or Lib Dem.
If I were a CON voter thinking of defecting to BP for Brexit reasons, this analysis tells me I might be better off going Ukip instead.
But I'm not, so others can decide that for themselves. And, of course, I'm using British/UK polling figures, not South East ones. So caveat lector.
> @Gardenwalker said: > What’s killing Labour is mealy-mouthed fence-sitting.
Yup, and not only because they're losing Remain supporters: They've destroyed Jeremy Corbyn's brand. Even if you didn't agree with him, he seemed authentic, taking clear positions, sincerely stating what he believed, etc etc.
Compare that to what he is now: Can anyone think of a more weaselly triangulator?
It was going to be such a good year. Avengers:Endgame was brilliant, Discovery and the Orville had great second seasons, John Wick 3 is looking really good. But shit like this keeps happening. This is not good. What the hell is going on?
> @dixiedean said: > There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
Labour thought Scotland was their in perpetuity too. Things sometimes change!
Two things to add: once people get the taste for voting for another party, they might find they enjoy it. As with Labour in Scotland, they've been waiting for over a decade for "their" voters to return "home" from the SNP, and it's not happening. Second, if you're swithering about voting for another party and you see your main rival also haemorrhaging votes, you'll feel more comfortable doing so. The weakness of Labour and the Tories has been noticed by the Tory and Labour voters, and they may feel the pressure is off them to stop Corbyn/May/McDonnell/Johnson or whichever figure haunts your nightmares.
> @ah009 said: > > @dixiedean said: > > There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government. > > Labour thought Scotland was their in perpetuity too. Things sometimes change! > > Two things to add: once people get the taste for voting for another party, they might find they enjoy it. As with Labour in Scotland, they've been waiting for over a decade for "their" voters to return "home" from the SNP, and it's not happening. > Second, if you're swithering about voting for another party and you see your main rival also haemorrhaging votes, you'll feel more comfortable doing so. The weakness of Labour and the Tories has been noticed by the Tory and Labour voters, and they may feel the pressure is off them to stop Corbyn/May/McDonnell/Johnson or whichever figure haunts your nightmares.
Yep. May and Corbyn have been electorally supporting each other like two drunks staggering home. As soon as one hit the deck, it soon brought the other to an epic face plant.
> @ah009 said: > > @rottenborough said: > > Two attempts to spell 'Traitors'. > > > > So thick they can't even do their abuse correctly. > > Judging from the way the graffiti tails off, they started something without thinking too hard about where it was going to end. #Zeitgeist
The highest altitude bomber of the period was the B29 Superfortress. But it could still be intercepted by the fighters of the day.
The three Hiroshima B29s (Enola Gay, The Great Artiste and Necessary Evil - great names!) were all B-29-MOs that had been constructed without turret penetrations in the fuselage. These flew even higher than non "Silverplate" B29s and were very difficult to intercept. Only the J2M Raiden stood any chance and the Japanese would not scramble these precious assets to intercept one ship recce flights - which is what they assumed Enola Gay to be...
The highest altitude bomber of the period was the B29 Superfortress. But it could still be intercepted by the fighters of the day.
The three Hiroshima B29s (Enola Gay, The Great Artiste and Necessary Evil - great names!) were all B-29-MOs that had been constructed without turret penetrations in the fuselage. These flew even higher than non "Silverplate" B29s and were very difficult to intercept. Only the J2M Raiden stood any chance and the Japanese would not scramble these precious assets to intercept one ship recce flights - which is what they assumed Enola Gay to be...
Ki-100s belonging to the 111th Sentai intercepted B-29 bombers attacking Kobe on 5 June 1945, claiming six bombers shot down and five more 'probables'. The Americans recorded a loss of nine B-29s to enemy action, including three shot down by Ki-100s over the target area.
Comments
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
>
> Didn't we provide quite a lot of scientific info regarding the Manhattan project? I've read that we would have developed an A-Bomb on our own by 1947.
I think it's "could have" rather than "would have".
But it would have required a massive diversion of resources away from other parts of the war effort and towards something which seemed pretty uncertain.
Until the successful Trinity test, a lot of people were doubtful it would all work as theorised. With our more limited resources, the questions would have been a lot more nagging.
> They are obsessed with Farage
>
> https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1128036121915600896
Not bad, in terms of messaging. But a bit weird that so much of it from Chuka and Heidi is pitched as a personal appeal to “you”, the voter, yet both of them for much of the time are looking off to the side of the camera.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
> > A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception?
> >
> >
> >
> > The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets.
> >
> > That's interesting. But we're talking about a sstrategic situation that would have been very different from what really happened in 1945. Would Operation Torch-style landings have worked without the fighting already going on in North Africa? could they even have got past Gibraltar into the Med?
> >
> > And without the UK and US providing support, it's hard to see Russia having been in the fight in 1945. They would either have been conquered or come to terms with Germany (and the latter would have been unlikely given Hitler's dislike of them).
>
> I have not seen it argued before that western support was so critical to the Soviets, who depended mostly upon throwing waves of basic infantry at the enemy relying on force of numbers. To suggest they would have collapsed without the arctic convoys is stretching things?
I dont think that a very accurate assesment of the progress of the Red Army from 1941 to 1945. It was very heavily dependent on US trucks, radios etc. It would have been impossible for the Bagration offensive of summer 1944 to have happened without.
> Even were we looking at such a scenario , I believe the Broadcasters would face serious difficulties. A sudden shift in poll ratings a mere few weeks prior to an election - a shift which might well be short -term anyway - should not in itself carry too much weight. It should not be Pollsters who determine whether a party merits Major rather than Minor status - but votes cast at elections. Neither of these leaders has such a track record at all in respect of the parties they now lead.
>
> I don’t know, if ChUK were neck and neck with Labour or the Tories I think it’d be right for Heidi Allen to debate one of them. The rules seem too inflexible to me
Farage vs Corbyn in a debate ?
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Foxy said:
> > >
> > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
> >
> > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.
>
> I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.
Quite. I also grew up,in the 1960s and 1970s and war films were ubiquitous but the older generation very rarely talked about the war. The view was that it was a terrible experience best left in the past. I cannot recall any organised remembrance events at school. I recently discovered that one of my teachers was a refugee who escaped from the nazis on one of the kinder transports, this was a complete surprise to me, these things were not generally talked about at that time. Everyone had horrific memories and they dealt with it by blocking out the past, an example we would do well to follow.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Foxy said:
> > > >
> > > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
> > >
> > > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.
> >
> > I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.
>
> Quite. I also grew up,in the 1960s and 1970s and war films were ubiquitous but the older generation very rarely talked about the war. The view was that it was a terrible experience best left in the past. I cannot recall any organised remembrance events at school. I recently discovered that one of my teachers was a refugee who escaped from the nazis on one of the kinder transports, this was a complete surprise to me, these things were not generally talked about at that time. Everyone had horrific memories and they dealt with it by blotting put the past.
Yes, very true. Few of my teachers, most of whom had wartime service, spoke much about it or made a big thing of it. Perhaps the most willing was one who had spent 3 years as a Japanese prisoner, and he was quite the peacenik.
As a counter-factual, so much could have happened by 1945 that many scenarios can reasonably be contemplated.
> It's a bit late for that...
>
> https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128047290982248449
Is that Liz Truss in the middle, there?
> A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though...
>
> To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance.
>
> One common false perception seems to be that the defeated or occupied countries had it easy after the war compared to Britain. Many people think that we didn't get any Marshall plan aid, for example, when in fact we got the most of any country.
>
> Daniel Kawczynski thought that. Other than him, I would have thought that most people who knew what the Marshall Plan was, would also know that we got a lot of it.
I think that the harshness of post war austerity colours memories. Most European countries were off the ration more quickly, so seemed very luxurious. That was my fathers memory of the early 1950s on holiday in Brittany. It was simply more fun.
> They are obsessed with Farage
>
> https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1128036121915600896
Indeed. They are just given him even more oxygen through publicity... Almost exactly like how REMAIN gave life to the £350m for the NHS claim in the referendum by keeping going on about it.
Three years on they've learned nothing.
> Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?I do like some of Change UK .
The only way to unsplit the Conservative Party is deliver a Brexit that is hard enough to end FoM, but soft enough that Remainers feel heard.
Denied a European or North African base, or Arabian base, a US invasion of Continental Europe may have used Iceland as a base. IOTL we invaded Iceland to prevent the Germans doing it first.
The highest altitude bomber of the period was the B29 Superfortress. But it could still be intercepted by the fighters of the day.
British/Imperial tactics of the day were to avoid large-scale attacks on the European mainland wherever possible. Such attempts that did take place such as Dieppe were not successful and a waste of resources and lives. Such battles that did take place were on the periphery such as North Africa. Arabia and Mediterranean islands and archipelagos. Churchill recognised the need for successes hence the steady succession of raids, etc. The Americans found this unimpressive, but were then badly beaten at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass and, having learned caution, were not so lacksidasical again
One misunderstood arm of British warfare was the bombing campaign. It reflected the British approach: industrial, logical, remote, relentless and ultimately successful although not in its own terms. It never live up to Harris's hopes but did tie up so much materiel in Germany and degraded production sufficiently as to make a Russian victory in the East much more likely.
Egerton is good on this (but not for tanks) as is Hastings, obvs.
> > @kle4 said:
> > Split the party? Are...are these people genuinely clueless? The party is already split for christ's sake. And how does 'not compromising' on it help them become unsplit, given the split that exists prevents them from delivering Brexit?I do like some of Change UK .
>
> The only way to unsplit the Conservative Party is deliver a Brexit that is hard enough to end FoM, but soft enough that Remainers feel heard.
There is no such thing.
-
Q. How do you make Jelly Babies?
A.
> > @williamglenn said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1128025379531370496
>
>
>
>
>
> She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.
>
>
>
> Doesn't make for a good tweet though.
>
>
>
> * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)
>
> Those are good points (except for your fifth: I'd question the basis for the world "likely") but nothing in those points address the question, which was "why does our victory in WW2 ensure we would come off best in a No Deal scenario?"
Together they evidence, modestly, that such of the structures, history and institutions of the UK that occasioned success in the conflicts mentioned are in some part also indicative of a country well-positioned and adapted to carving its own path on the world stage.
For the record, though, I don't think a country's successful military history is strongly positively correlated with it's ability to deal with constitutional and trading changes of the sort we face. I'm just giving an example of a better answer.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128040292291104774
(*) The reason behind the name was rather odd. AIUI the name of an obscure and unimportant housekeeper contributed to the paranoia that led to the Manhattan Project ...
> Hunt is certainly going for it. As those of us on at 100/1 will be pleased to see (speaking for our wallets):
>
> https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128040292291104774
Ah, Hunt, one of the invisible men of the Cabinet, except when it is leadership speculation time. I wonder what his plan for Brexit is.
> > @viewcode said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1128025379531370496
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.
> >
> >
> >
> > Doesn't make for a good tweet though.
> >
> >
> >
> > * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)
> >
> > Those are good points (except for your fifth: I'd question the basis for the world "likely") but nothing in those points address the question, which was "why does our victory in WW2 ensure we would come off best in a No Deal scenario?"
>
> Together they evidence, modestly, that such of the structures, history and institutions of the UK that occasioned success in the conflicts mentioned are in some part also indicative of a country well-positioned and adapted to carving its own path on the world stage.
>
> For the record, though, I don't think a country's successful military history is strongly positively correlated with it's ability to deal with constitutional and trading changes of the sort we face. I'm just giving an example of a better answer.
Hmm, not seeing much recent evidence that our structures and institutions and perhaps even people are up to the job any more!
They don't want reality, they want a prelapsarian dream.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1128025379531370496
>
> https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128040292291104774
All the better to re-enact the Second World War with, which apparently is the purpose of Brexit.
2% of 2017 Tories to vote Green
62% of 2017 Tories to vote Brexit Party
Lib Dems are taking 21% of Labour votes.
Lib Dems are mostly profiting from remainer in-fighting, and that's mostly centred on London.
Labour, by contrast to the Tories, have shipped 13% of their vote to UKIP/Brexit Party.
Labour are losing more to leave than the Tories are to remain.
> Hunt is certainly going for it. As those of us on at 100/1 will be pleased to see (speaking for our wallets):
>
> https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1128040292291104774
Given Boris, Raab, Gove and Javid all beat Hunt in the last Conservative Home Tory members poll head to head he has a lot of ground to makeup and given the Tories' dire current ratings and the threat of the Brexit Party hard to see either he or Javid have much of a chance now, for most members only a Leaver will do
Then maybe the LD will surprise?
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1128050320486141954
> > @IanB2 said:
> >
> > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
>
> Germany might not have declared war on the USA in the first place in those circumstances.
Germany never really wanted to declare war on Britain either, if Halifax not Churchill had succeeded Chamberlain Hitler would have done a deal with the British Empire that if it stayed neutral and allowed the Nazis to occupy continental Europe Germany would not try and invade Britain.
> If there is a fairly early GE. And Tories go all out Hard Brexit to stop Farage, and Labour are still led by Jeremy 'I don't want to say it, but I've hated the EU since 1970' Corbyn.
>
> Then maybe the LD will surprise?
Boris could win a majority in that instance if he squeezes the Brexit Party and the LDs eat into the Corbyn Labour vote
Labour really are ******!
> Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> Labour really are ******!
It'll be amusing to see them try that.
> Given all the Tory voters deserting the party for the LibDems and Greens, it’s rather more than lack of delivery. In their case, delivery will make things worse still.
>
> 5% of 2017 Tories to vote LD
> 2% of 2017 Tories to vote Green
> 62% of 2017 Tories to vote Brexit Party
>
> Lib Dems are taking 21% of Labour votes.
>
> Lib Dems are mostly profiting from remainer in-fighting, and that's mostly centred on London.
>
> Labour, by contrast to the Tories, have shipped 13% of their vote to UKIP/Brexit Party.
>
> Labour are losing more to leave than the Tories are to remain.
Opinium's latest poll for the European Parliament elections had more Tory voters being Remainers than Leavers given so many Tory Leavers will be voting Brexit Party at those elections.
"It was one of the most genuinely disturbing political events I’ve ever attended. And Westminster ought to be shit-scared."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/13/nigel-farage-brexit-party-event-terrifying-glimpse-future
> Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> Labour really are ******!
Farage does not want to do pacts with the Tories (bar a few diehard No Dealers like Francois and Patel), he wants to destroy the Tories and replace them as the main party of the right with his Brexit Party.
Mind you he wants to do the same to Labour in its Leave seats in the North, the Midlands and South Wales.
Farage now seems himself as the Alex Salmond of England and he wants the 2 main parties for lunch
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1128004078401937409
Surely we need a thread header today?
Labour Remainers (c two thirds of them) are peeling off at a rapid rate, whilst retaining many of their Leavers.
It is some tribute to the political skills of the two main parties that they have managed to thoroughly piss off the bulk of their erstwhile supporters.
Nicely green on the market now.
Strange times.
UK wide (incl London) = 21%
London = 30%
Labour still cruising home with BAME voters in London - 53% to Lib Dems 16.
The Lib Dem vote drops from 27% in inner London to 17% in outer.
> Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> Labour really are ******!
Not going to happen, not least because the Brexit party is a one trick pony.
> Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> Labour really are ******!
There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > >
> > > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
> >
> > Germany might not have declared war on the USA in the first place in those circumstances.
>
> Germany never really wanted to declare war on Britain either, if Halifax not Churchill had succeeded Chamberlain Hitler would have done a deal with the British Empire that if it stayed neutral and allowed the Nazis to occupy continental Europe Germany would not try and invade Britain.
Hitler being renowned for keeping to the strict letter of any agreement.
> > @Mexicanpete said:
>
> > Interesting observations from Crispin Blunt on Newsnight.Tory and Brexit pacts at next GE to generate a Conservative/Brexit landslide.
>
> >
>
> > Labour really are ******!
>
>
>
> Not going to happen, not least because the Brexit party is a one trick pony.
>
> If they are so incompetent, then why are they doing so well in the polls?
I didn't say they are incompetent, I said that they are a one trick pony.
Their policy is immediate No Deal Brexit. After that they have no policy, and they do not for any other issue.
https://twitter.com/imccrae/status/1127119322999029760?s=21
It just struck me: this is the domestic manifestation of "they need us so much we can make our own deal", isn't it? Having catastrophically failed with Europe, they are now repeating the same mistake with the Brexit party. Lord above, what is the point...
So thick they can't even do their abuse correctly.
> > @isam said:
> > They are obsessed with Farage
> >
> > https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1128036121915600896
>
> Indeed. They are just given him even more oxygen through publicity... Almost exactly like how REMAIN gave life to the £350m for the NHS claim in the referendum by keeping going on about it.
>
> Three years on they've learned nothing.
Indeed. How about leafleting, organising meetings, putting out a manifesto, etc. The Tories have totally vacated the field of battle. Labour has entered it with all the enthusiasm of a Christian v Lion headliner at the Coliseum. CHUK seem terminally averse to elections of any kind.
No surprise Farage is hoovering up. He, at least seems like he wants it. (Albeit what he wants is a seat at a table he claims to despise).
The LDs and Greens do too Tbf.
In a ten-seat region like this, the boundaries are approx:
0% = 0 seats
7.4% = 1 seat
14.9% = 2 seats
22.2% = 3 seats
29.2% = 4 seats
36.9% = 5 seats
I've no doubt these figures would look very different if the field size was different. Half the seats on 37% is a good indicator that those who say that this system is as close to FPTP as it is to "proper" PR have a point.
It has also brought to my attention the notion (perhaps this was obvious to others) that the smaller parties like the Greens and the Conservatives can really affect how many seats the larger parties like Labour can get. Without even changing the larger party percentages, if you had CON 12% UKP 6%, that's one seat between them. But if you have CON 9% UKP 9%, that's two seats. That seat is most likely to be plucked from BP or LAB. The uncertainty increases with vote share, so BP votes could end up being worth less than Ukip ones, and Labour worth less than Green or Lib Dem.
If I were a CON voter thinking of defecting to BP for Brexit reasons, this analysis tells me I might be better off going Ukip instead.
But I'm not, so others can decide that for themselves. And, of course, I'm using British/UK polling figures, not South East ones. So caveat lector.
> What’s killing Labour is mealy-mouthed fence-sitting.
Yup, and not only because they're losing Remain supporters: They've destroyed Jeremy Corbyn's brand. Even if you didn't agree with him, he seemed authentic, taking clear positions, sincerely stating what he believed, etc etc.
Compare that to what he is now: Can anyone think of a more weaselly triangulator?
> There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
Labour thought Scotland was their in perpetuity too. Things sometimes change!
Two things to add: once people get the taste for voting for another party, they might find they enjoy it. As with Labour in Scotland, they've been waiting for over a decade for "their" voters to return "home" from the SNP, and it's not happening.
Second, if you're swithering about voting for another party and you see your main rival also haemorrhaging votes, you'll feel more comfortable doing so. The weakness of Labour and the Tories has been noticed by the Tory and Labour voters, and they may feel the pressure is off them to stop Corbyn/May/McDonnell/Johnson or whichever figure haunts your nightmares.
> Two attempts to spell 'Traitors'.
>
> So thick they can't even do their abuse correctly.
Judging from the way the graffiti tails off, they started something without thinking too hard about where it was going to end. #Zeitgeist
> Two attempts to spell 'Traitors'.
> So thick they can't even do their abuse correctly.
Let's not jump to conclusions, maybe they were trying to spell "tractors", tractors are pretty great
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tractors&iax=images&ia=images
> > @dixiedean said:
> > There does seem to be a kind of insouciant arrogance amongst some, that wherever all this ends up, it will undoubtedly be with the Conservatives as the natural Party of government.
>
> Labour thought Scotland was their in perpetuity too. Things sometimes change!
>
> Two things to add: once people get the taste for voting for another party, they might find they enjoy it. As with Labour in Scotland, they've been waiting for over a decade for "their" voters to return "home" from the SNP, and it's not happening.
> Second, if you're swithering about voting for another party and you see your main rival also haemorrhaging votes, you'll feel more comfortable doing so. The weakness of Labour and the Tories has been noticed by the Tory and Labour voters, and they may feel the pressure is off them to stop Corbyn/May/McDonnell/Johnson or whichever figure haunts your nightmares.
Yep. May and Corbyn have been electorally supporting each other like two drunks staggering home. As soon as one hit the deck, it soon brought the other to an epic face plant.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > Two attempts to spell 'Traitors'.
> >
> > So thick they can't even do their abuse correctly.
>
> Judging from the way the graffiti tails off, they started something without thinking too hard about where it was going to end. #Zeitgeist
> Wow, @viewcode actually likes Discovery? I thought I was the only one!
I really liked it too