> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @valleyboy said: > > Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green. > > Once you go over that white line there is no going back. > > Let us hope so. Time they were thrown out of government in Wales
Was expecting a constructive reply from you. Tories got nothing to crow about.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @eristdoof said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > What's the actual difference between Change UK and the Lib Dems ? > > > > > > I can see clear differentiation between all the other parties to a lesser or greater degree but I'm struggling with CHUK and Lib Dems. > > > > CHUK is little more than "we don't like the tories and we don't like Labour and we want to remain" > > > > The LD'S are a well organised party with a full mainfesto at each national election, many councillors throughout GB and hope to form coalition governments. > > > > They seem quite different to me. > > > > Sure, my question was more aimed at what the hell is the point of CHUK ? > > Now UKIP has obviously died on its arse so there was a need to rebrand the leave project... the Lib Dems are looking up though - so just quite simply what was/is the point of CHUK ! > > I think the question begs the answer 'not much point' - and it is reflected in the polling.
Of course the answer lies in the origins of Change UK. It was formed as a group of independents, and it'd be odd for a group of independents to join an existing party. There are other factors, of course. The Lib Dems have been languishing for several years; in some ways it's quite a surprise that the public suddenly seems to have forgiven them. Also, there's the belief/feeling that something akin to En Marche could flourish in the UK in the current circumstances, and indeed maybe it could. But the tiggers have failed to settle on who their Macron is going to be, and it's hard to see the ex-Labour tiggers approving a Macronist line.
We'll have to see what course the tiggers take over the next few months before deciding whether they are distinctive enough to have a future. I think a couple of their MPs might switch to the Lib Dems, but at the same time a few more LabCon MPs will join the tiggers. What would make a big difference would be for a couple of popular non-MPs to become the leaders.
Re. milkshaking, can't help thinking that in other circs the UK exceptionalists would be wanking over it as a marvellously eccentric & British protest compared to those ghastly foreigns with their riots, revolutions & assassinations (though we can't really take the moral high ground on the latter any more).
Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now.
> @eristdoof said: > What caused the surge in green votes in 1989? Was it the recent discovery of the ozone hole? > > It would have been my first Euro-Vote: I think that was the year that in Bristol we voted out a particularly arrogant MEP who was afraid of flying and one time he stormed the cockpit because the stewardess insisted he fastened his seat belt.
It was caused by the total implosion of the SDP, Lib Dems, etc, at that time. Most of the Green votes came from people who previously voted for the SDP/Liberal Alliance. The Greens came second in a lot of seats in the south of England where the Alliance had previously done well in 1987 and 1983.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > A £5.25 banana and salted caramel from Five Guys. > > Geordie hospitality. > > I’ve gone off Geordies. > > One of them tried to punch me earlier on this month.
Were you wearing more expensive trainers than him?
> @Theuniondivvie said: > Re. milkshaking, can't help thinking that in other circs the UK exceptionalists would be wanking over it as a marvellously eccentric & British protest compared to those ghastly foreigns with their riots, revolutions & assassinations (though we can't really take the moral high ground on the latter any more). > > Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now. > > Speaking of roofs.. > > https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1130385809939542016<;
+++++
What an absolute dick
"Do you know how many f*cking years I spent in that pub????"
Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine.
Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong.
But.
One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house.
While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law.
We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
> @valleyboy said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @valleyboy said: > > > Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green. > > > Once you go over that white line there is no going back. > > > > Let us hope so. Time they were thrown out of government in Wales > > Was expecting a constructive reply from you. Tories got nothing to crow about.
It is constructive and I am not crowing. I am happy for anyone to govern Wales but labour and Drakeford.
> @_Anazina_ said: > FPT: Mr. Anazina, it's almost as if one's a nickname and one's just pejorative. > > *sighs* > > You keep bleating on about that. As for 'pearl clutching', I was quite content to immediately refrain from using a term I'd rarely heard used but was informed by someone here was offensive to Scots. I didn't accuse him of pearl clutching or whatever nonsense people without an argument claim to try and invalidate someone's perspective. > > Frog and Little Englander are both pejorative. I regard the spectacle of someone who has never been too France clutching his pearls at being called a Little Englander, while referring to the neighbours he has never got off his arse to visit as Frogs as darkly ironic, even if you don't.
pretty common occurence
France les boches - cabbage heads US Krauts - self explanatory France les macaronis - guess which nation Everyone - Yanks
Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green.
Once you go over that white line there is no going back.
This is an election in which we will see the most politically engaged portion of the population duke it out in a free-hit contest. It's far too early to extrapolate what will happen in future FPTP votes. For the majority of the electorate who will not vote on Thursday things may well seem rather different.
Miss Cyclefree, indeed. Slightly perverse how 'offence' is used as a pretext to try and silence people, yet also considered just cause, by some, for low level physical attacks.
> @Cyclefree said: > Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine. > > Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong. > > But. > > One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house. > > While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law. > > We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
Indeed. However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation. If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it.
This is irrelevant. Labour needs to attract Brexiters to ever form a majority. It's too late for them to go all out remain now anyway. That ship has floated off to Lib Dem and Green harbours.
> @Byronic said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > Re. milkshaking, can't help thinking that in other circs the UK exceptionalists would be wanking over it as a marvellously eccentric & British protest compared to those ghastly foreigns with their riots, revolutions & assassinations (though we can't really take the moral high ground on the latter any more). > > > > Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now. > > > > Speaking of roofs.. > > > > https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1130385809939542016<; > > +++++ > > What an absolute dick > > "Do you know how many f*cking years I spent in that pub????" > > I dunno, but I'm guessing it's a LARGE NUMBER
Not sure I entirely agree with you, for the reasons in my later post.
To be clear: the xenophobia and turning a blind eye to the rise of the far right etc I absolutely abhor. Too many on the Brexit side have been careless, whether negligently or deliberately, about how they have spoken about others and it has done their cause great harm and given cover to others to behave in unpleasant ways.
But one could easily rewrite your passage to cover the undercurrents that led to the murders on London Bridge or the Manchester Arena or the tube lines in 2005 or the murder of Lee Rigby etc, the rise of Islamist extremism, the dog whistling by groups claiming to be concerned about age-appropriate sex education, the multiple dishonesties about what diversity actually entails. All equally abhorrent. And there were far too many who turned a blind eye to what was going on and then got outraged when the mad and the bad acted on the words they heard and read.
The line between speech which is free even if the content is reprehensible and incitement to violence is a fine one but a precious one.
The difference between what should be criminal and between what is permissible - but in a well-ordered society considered unacceptable - is equally fine and equally precious.
All the things you describe are horrible. Some are rightly criminal. Some aren't. Boorish xenophobia is horrible. But it is not criminal. If it is to be then one should also be banning the use of terms such kuffir, which is also obnoxiously offensive.
> @Norm said: > > This is irrelevant. Labour needs to attract Brexiters to ever form a majority. It's too late for them to go all out remain now anyway. That ship has floated off to Lib Dem and Green harbours.
Yes, the point of the table is to show just how precarious their position is.
> Not everyone watched it at 4.30 this morning like I did.
Did it cure the insomnia ?
I love Tits and Dragons Game of Thrones but it is fair to say the show whilst still brilliant had a drop off when they ran out George R.R. Martin source material.
> @dixiedean said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine. > > > > Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong. > > > > But. > > > > One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house. > > > > While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law. > > > > We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence. > > Indeed. > However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation. > If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it.
Agree. But there is a difference between a self-denying ordinance i.e. I am not going to inflame a complicated and difficult situation, I am going to choose my words carefully and being banned from saying something which needs saying.
Sometimes it is necessary to say things bluntly and clearly not dance around an issue. Sometimes people's concern does need expressing or channelling rather than being suppressed and then being used by the malign in ways which lead to the sort of behaviour which can easily tip over into violence.
As ever where the balance should be struck is the difficulty. But it should not stop us from trying to find that balance.
John Harris's article seems spot on to me. I attended a slightly pompous function the other week and encountered several people who said they were going to break the habit of a lifetime and not vote Conservative. And it wasn't because the party wasn't being Brexity enough.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Stopper, indeed. > > Blair's not always wrong.
He is quite right on this.
He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
> @brendan16 said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. Stopper, indeed. > > > > Blair's not always wrong. > > He is quite right on this. > > He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
...The line between speech which is free even if the content is reprehensible and incitement to violence is a fine one but a precious one.
The difference between what should be criminal and between what is permissible - but in a well-ordered society considered unacceptable - is equally fine and equally precious...
The lines are precious, but I'm not sure they are fine, so much as messy and disputed.
Something which echoes a 1973 essay on Roe v Wade I was re-reading today:
https://www.texasobserver.org/molly-ivins-on-roe-v-wade/ …Abortion has been one of the messiest issues. Issues get to be messy not because reasonable folk disagree about them, but because irrational emotionalism infects them. And during the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years of public discussion of abortion, both sides have always seen the question, finally, as one of Right Against Wrong. This has been true of the abortion debate to a far greater extent than it is of public debates on such simple topics as defense posture, welfare reform, campaign spending and the like…
> @Cyclefree said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine. > > > > > > Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong. > > > > > > But. > > > > > > One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house. > > > > > > While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law. > > > > > > We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence. > > > > Indeed. > > However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation. > > If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it. > > Agree. But there is a difference between a self-denying ordinance i.e. I am not going to inflame a complicated and difficult situation, I am going to choose my words carefully and being banned from saying something which needs saying. > > Sometimes it is necessary to say things bluntly and clearly not dance around an issue. Sometimes people's concern does need expressing or channelling rather than being suppressed and then being used by the malign in ways which lead to the sort of behaviour which can easily tip over into violence. > > As ever where the balance should be struck is the difficulty. But it should not stop us from trying to find that balance.
I agree with this. I just feel that we have overstepped the balance, and people have simply shrugged and not called it out. FURY at 5p plastic bag charge!! ANGER was rising today at RIP-OFF of hard working shoppers...
Really???
It has become so commonplace that we barely notice it. If we are taught to be angry at that how do we react to war, torture, wrongful imprisonment, animal abuse, folk who cheat the elderly or with learning disabilities?
Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
WTAF?!?!?
Though disgusting, it actually makes a certain amount of sense - along similar lines to salted caramel. Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though.
Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
WTAF?!?!?
Though disgusting, it actually makes a certain amount of sense - along similar lines to salted caramel. Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though.
I like salted caramel. I also liked having pancakes with bacon and maple syrup when I was in the US. I can deal with sweet/salty mixes.
But how the hell does bacon in a milkshake work? Is it like fruit in a Pimms?
If we are taught to be angry at that how do we react to war, torture, wrongful imprisonment, animal abuse, folk who cheat the elderly or with learning disabilities?
It worked out well for Corbyn as the right of centre press had managed to big up Ed Miliband as the second coming of Lenin in 2015 so attacks against Corbyn were less than effective in 2017.
Hmmm. That's a surprisingly weak poster. "Shame Breastfeeders" - followed by a moderately phrased opinion that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public - but do it discreetly. Some will find his opinion old-fashioned and wrong, some will agree. I'm not sure that's going to let slip the dogs of electoral war on Farage.
It's all the more surprising, because Farage has been saying some outrageous things - some downright racist, and genuinely offensive - for many years. So why choose such a relatively anodyne remark?!
Looking at the polls, the is room in Britain for a socially conservative but party with socialist policies.
I think TMay half heatedly tried to offer that in 2017, but was never going to work as these voters simply don't see the Tories as for the working class.
If the Brexit Party can deliver a coherent (tough ask I know...) group of policies after the Euro elections then maybe that could be them. There is plenty of areas that would like such a party.
Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
WTAF?!?!?
Though disgusting, it actually makes a certain amount of sense - along similar lines to salted caramel. Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though.
I like salted caramel. I also liked having pancakes with bacon and maple syrup when I was in the US. I can deal with sweet/salty mixes.
But how the hell does bacon in a milkshake work? Is it like fruit in a Pimms?
> @TrèsDifficile said: > Just looking at 5 Guys menu online.. > > https://www.fiveguys.co.uk/download/uk/menu.pdf > > Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!" > > WTAF?!?!? > > Though disgusting, it actually makes a certain amount of sense - along similar lines to salted caramel. > Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though. > > I like salted caramel. I also liked having pancakes with bacon and maple syrup when I was in the US. I can deal with sweet/salty mixes. > > But how the hell does bacon in a milkshake work? Is it like fruit in a Pimms?
You use it in the same way as you would with a flake in a Mr Whippy it would seem.
> @brendan16 said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. Stopper, indeed. > > > > Blair's not always wrong. > > He is quite right on this. > > He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > Mr. Stopper, indeed. > > > > > > Blair's not always wrong. > > > > He is quite right on this. > > > > He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves. > > Or Arron Banks does.
Much better that his mate pays for it than the taxpayer. Sad that anyone needs 3 or 4 bodyguards though.
> @nunuone said: > > @isam said: > > Wales Poll: > > > > Brexit 36% > > > > Bremain 37% > > > > Confusion & duplicity 21% > > > > UKIP are probably Brexit > > Wow. > > Looking at the polls, the is room in Britain for a socially conservative but party with socialist policies. > > I think TMay half heatedly tried to offer that in 2017, but was never going to work as these voters simply don't see the Tories as for the working class. > > If the Brexit Party can deliver a coherent (tough ask I know...) group of policies after the Euro elections then maybe that could be them. There is plenty of areas that would like such a party.
Yeah, but they won't. Cos one N Farage will write the manifesto. It will not have any economic policies which could be anywhere near described "Socialist."
Hmmm. That's a surprisingly weak poster. "Shame Breastfeeders" - followed by a moderately phrased opinion that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public - but do it discreetly. Some will find his opinion old-fashioned and wrong, some will agree. I'm not sure that's going to let slip the dogs of electoral war on Farage.
It's all the more surprising, because Farage has been saying some outrageous things - some downright racist, and genuinely offensive - for many years. So why choose such a relatively anodyne remark?!
Plus the grammar is shocking. He probably does after all sit in the corner from time to time and not breastfeed mums. In fact I doubt he has ever breastfed mums.
> @Nigelb said: > ...The line between speech which is free even if the content is reprehensible and incitement to violence is a fine one but a precious one. > > The difference between what should be criminal and between what is permissible - but in a well-ordered society considered unacceptable - is equally fine and equally precious... > > > The lines are precious, but I'm not sure they are fine, so much as messy and disputed. > > Something which echoes a 1973 essay on Roe v Wade I was re-reading today: > > https://www.texasobserver.org/molly-ivins-on-roe-v-wade/ > …Abortion has been one of the messiest issues. Issues get to be messy not because reasonable folk disagree about them, but because irrational emotionalism infects them. And during the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years of public discussion of abortion, both sides have always seen the question, finally, as one of Right Against Wrong. This has been true of the abortion debate to a far greater extent than it is of public debates on such simple topics as defense posture, welfare reform, campaign spending and the like…
It's in part because we have lost a belief in "live and let live". There are things I would not ever do myself but if others want to, so be it. Instead, we are in danger of becoming people who think that there is only one limited range of "received opinion" (and way of life) and anyone straying outside that is somehow wrong and not to be borne.
Ironically, in a largely secular age, it is a very religious way of looking at the world. The Inquisition felt that it was right to kill people for believing the wrong things in order to save their soul. We have some of that mentality still - that those who don't think like us should somehow not be allowed.
Abortion is a difficult one. If you think life begins at conception and is sacred then killing it, for whatever reason is a moral wrong. Fine: don't do it.
But too many people taking that view then go on to think that this should give them the right to impose this view on others, even if they don't believe it. That is where I part company with them.
I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. If I had been faced with an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or carrying a deformed child I don't know how, in practice, I would have reacted.
But I would not dream of telling other women that they should react in the same way as me. Some people do think that they ought - for religious or other reasons - tell other people how to behave and think, even on issues of conscience. Conscience is to me a personal matter - relating to one's own actions - not a stick with which to beat others.
Ethnic minorities in Britain are facing rising and increasingly overt racism, with levels of discrimination and abuse continuing to grow in the wake of the Brexit referendum, new nationwide research reveals.
Seven in 10 ethnic minority people now report having faced racial discrimination, compared to 58% before the EU vote in January 2016, according to polling data seen by the Guardian.
It comes amid rising concern at the use of divisive rhetoric in public ahead of this week’s European parliament elections, where some leading candidates, including Ukip’s Carl Benjamin and independent Tommy Robinson, have records of overt racism.
... It's in part because we have lost a belief in "live and let live". There are things I would not ever do myself but if others want to, so be it. Instead, we are in danger of becoming people who think that there is only one limited range of "received opinion" (and way of life) and anyone straying outside that is somehow wrong and not to be borne.
Ironically, in a largely secular age, it is a very religious way of looking at the world. The Inquisition felt that it was right to kill people for believing the wrong things in order to save their soul. We have some of that mentality still - that those who don't think like us should somehow not be allowed.
Abortion is a difficult one. If you think life begins at conception and is sacred then killing it, for whatever reason is a moral wrong. Fine: don't do it.
But too many people taking that view then go on to think that this should give them the right to impose this view on others, even if they don't believe it. That is where I part company with them.
I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. If I had been faced with an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or carrying a deformed child I don't know how, in practice, I would have reacted.
But I would not dream of telling other women that they should react in the same way as me. Some people do think that they ought - for religious or other reasons - tell other people how to behave and think, even on issues of conscience. Conscience is to me a personal matter - relating to one's own actions - not a stick with which to beat others.
An admirable attitude, with which only the unreasonable could take issue.
My point was that even the most finely drawn laws can do little to settle debates where unreason predominates.
> @TOPPING said: > Plus the grammar is shocking. He probably does after all sit in the corner from time to time and not breastfeed mums. In fact I doubt he has ever breastfed mums.
Nige's isn't much better, how flamboyantly do you get your tit out to be 'openly ostentatious'? Must have been off marching in a beret when they were doing tautologies in English.
Farage may have unintentionally done Remain a favour. As his "party" is so unequivocally hard Brexit, he needs to attain at least 52% of the vote to claim a real prize!
Farage may have unintentionally done Remain a favour. As his "party" is so unequivocally hard Brexit, he needs to attain at least 52% of the vote to claim a real prize!
> @Pulpstar said: > https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216 > > > > > > This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly. > > > > The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party. > > It's ... essentially the Tory base. > > Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party.
That Dave Cameron really knew how to trash a party
> @Alanbrooke said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216 > > > > > > > > > > > > This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly. > > > > > > > > The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party. > > > > It's ... essentially the Tory base. > > > > Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party. > > That Dave Cameron really knew how to trash a party
Perhaps he and Corbyn are also being paid by Arron Banks?
The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems .
The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats .
> @nico67 said: > Divisions within divisions . > > Both Labour and the Tories have big problems . > > The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems . > > The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats . > > > >
> @not_on_fire said: > https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216 > > > > > > This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly. > > > > The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party. > > It's ... essentially the Tory base. > > Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party. > > Is it worth having a political party whose base is full of Hard Brexiteers? A good chance to clear out some dead wood.
There is a lot of it to clear out! The only slightly reassuring thing for One Nation Tories is that Labour is under almost as much existential pressure
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @nico67 said: > > Divisions within divisions . > > > > Both Labour and the Tories have big problems . > > > > The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems . > > > > The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats . > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Nick (Boles)
Very funny . I know it looks a crude example of the voters in each party but I think it’s on the money .
Farage has spent years telling people they are getting screwed over by the establishment and now the people who voted Brexit feel as though they've been screwed over by the establishment.
It's been a consistently crude, uncomplicated and effective message from a bloke who's never going to be in a position of power, and he's in a hell of a halcyon period with it right now.
> @nico67 said: > Divisions within divisions . > > Both Labour and the Tories have big problems . > > The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems . > > The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats . > > > >
And todays confrontation with Jess Phillips and the leader of the group of parents taking their children out of school because the school is teaching LBGT matters. This is a labour politician in direct conflict with the Muslim community and it is spreading throughout Birmingham and England with Christians joining the revolt
Where is tolerance when it is so desperately needed
Outside of brexit this is a developing and serious crisis in our schools efforts to teach tolerance
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > > He's not absolving himself of the blame, he'll take more than his fair share of blame. > > It is going to be brutally honest, I suspect it will also not make good reading for Michael Gove. -------------
It has occurred to me that the even if the Queen might have sympathies towards Brexit, she certainly won’t like the current political climate. If party loyalty is breaking down, perhaps more than just our membership of the EU is at stake.
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine? > > I believe all peers or MPs who have advocated voting for another party have or will shortly be thrown out.
> He's not absolving himself of the blame, he'll take more than his fair share of blame.
>
> It is going to be brutally honest, I suspect it will also not make good reading for Michael Gove.
-------------
Have you read it or spoken to people who have?
No comment.
All I will say is that Dave regrets the costs of Brexit (both in terms opportunities lost and how we've got here) and Dave now views Gove with the same love I have for Mark Reckless.
There was an interesting and rather depressing poll there which showed GOP and Dems voters now saying in alarming numbers they’d be very upset if their children married anyone who supports the opposing party .
And that’s beginning to feed through into the UK.
Identity and culture wars between Remainers and Leavers . This is really blurring the lines between the parties .
The first question now is not which party you support but how you voted in the referendum .
> This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly. > > The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
I think a problem is that everyone thinks the Euro elections are important but not serious. Important enough to bother to vote and vote differently from normal, but not serious enough to inhibit members from straying. I don't know any Labour members who are actually not voting Labour, but I know several who say "After careful thought I am sticking with Labour", as though it had been very much in doubt. They'd never do that for a GE or even for a local election.
I suspect Dave will also be aiming fire at those who said in 2016 that No Deal was Project Fear but in 2019 say No Deal Brexit is the only true Brexit.
> @Stark_Dawning said: > Surely the vast majority of Tories would love Farage to be their leader. The only question now is would he accept the post if they offered it.
> @valleyboy said: > Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green. > Once you go over that white line there is no going back.
I would hope they face expulsion - as should Heseltine from the Tories.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > I suspect Dave will also be aiming fire at those who said in 2016 that No Deal was Project Fear but in 2019 say No Deal Brexit is the only true Brexit.
Unless theres a chapter called "Why George Osborne is a creep" it will lack all credibility
Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine?
Well said. All those Tory councillors voting for a party other than Brexit should be expelled. If they won’t support their party why the hell should they have a say in electing the new leader.
Comments
> > @valleyboy said:
> > Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green.
> > Once you go over that white line there is no going back.
>
> Let us hope so. Time they were thrown out of government in Wales
Was expecting a constructive reply from you. Tories got nothing to crow about.
> > @eristdoof said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > What's the actual difference between Change UK and the Lib Dems ?
> > >
> > > I can see clear differentiation between all the other parties to a lesser or greater degree but I'm struggling with CHUK and Lib Dems.
> >
> > CHUK is little more than "we don't like the tories and we don't like Labour and we want to remain"
> >
> > The LD'S are a well organised party with a full mainfesto at each national election, many councillors throughout GB and hope to form coalition governments.
> >
> > They seem quite different to me.
> >
>
> Sure, my question was more aimed at what the hell is the point of CHUK ?
>
> Now UKIP has obviously died on its arse so there was a need to rebrand the leave project... the Lib Dems are looking up though - so just quite simply what was/is the point of CHUK !
>
> I think the question begs the answer 'not much point' - and it is reflected in the polling.
Of course the answer lies in the origins of Change UK. It was formed as a group of independents, and it'd be odd for a group of independents to join an existing party. There are other factors, of course. The Lib Dems have been languishing for several years; in some ways it's quite a surprise that the public suddenly seems to have forgiven them. Also, there's the belief/feeling that something akin to En Marche could flourish in the UK in the current circumstances, and indeed maybe it could. But the tiggers have failed to settle on who their Macron is going to be, and it's hard to see the ex-Labour tiggers approving a Macronist line.
We'll have to see what course the tiggers take over the next few months before deciding whether they are distinctive enough to have a future. I think a couple of their MPs might switch to the Lib Dems, but at the same time a few more LabCon MPs will join the tiggers. What would make a big difference would be for a couple of popular non-MPs to become the leaders.
Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now.
Speaking of roofs..
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1130385809939542016
> What caused the surge in green votes in 1989? Was it the recent discovery of the ozone hole?
>
> It would have been my first Euro-Vote: I think that was the year that in Bristol we voted out a particularly arrogant MEP who was afraid of flying and one time he stormed the cockpit because the stewardess insisted he fastened his seat belt.
It was caused by the total implosion of the SDP, Lib Dems, etc, at that time. Most of the Green votes came from people who previously voted for the SDP/Liberal Alliance. The Greens came second in a lot of seats in the south of England where the Alliance had previously done well in 1987 and 1983.
https://www.fiveguys.co.uk/download/uk/menu.pdf
Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
WTAF?!?!?
> A £5.25 banana and salted caramel from Five Guys.
>
> Geordie hospitality.
>
> I’ve gone off Geordies.
>
> One of them tried to punch me earlier on this month.
Were you wearing more expensive trainers than him?
We had beaten them and the Geordies were upset throughout the match because some Liverpool fans had acquired seats in the home area.
I was entirely innocent.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1130489663439933440
> Re. milkshaking, can't help thinking that in other circs the UK exceptionalists would be wanking over it as a marvellously eccentric & British protest compared to those ghastly foreigns with their riots, revolutions & assassinations (though we can't really take the moral high ground on the latter any more).
>
> Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now.
>
> Speaking of roofs..
>
> https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1130385809939542016<;
+++++
What an absolute dick
"Do you know how many f*cking years I spent in that pub????"
I dunno, but I'm guessing it's a LARGE NUMBER
Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong.
But.
One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house.
While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law.
We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @valleyboy said:
> > > Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green.
> > > Once you go over that white line there is no going back.
> >
> > Let us hope so. Time they were thrown out of government in Wales
>
> Was expecting a constructive reply from you. Tories got nothing to crow about.
It is constructive and I am not crowing. I am happy for anyone to govern Wales but labour and Drakeford.
> FPT: Mr. Anazina, it's almost as if one's a nickname and one's just pejorative.
>
> *sighs*
>
> You keep bleating on about that. As for 'pearl clutching', I was quite content to immediately refrain from using a term I'd rarely heard used but was informed by someone here was offensive to Scots. I didn't accuse him of pearl clutching or whatever nonsense people without an argument claim to try and invalidate someone's perspective.
>
> Frog and Little Englander are both pejorative. I regard the spectacle of someone who has never been too France clutching his pearls at being called a Little Englander, while referring to the neighbours he has never got off his arse to visit as Frogs as darkly ironic, even if you don't.
pretty common occurence
France les boches - cabbage heads
US Krauts - self explanatory
France les macaronis - guess which nation
Everyone - Yanks
Miss Cyclefree, indeed. Slightly perverse how 'offence' is used as a pretext to try and silence people, yet also considered just cause, by some, for low level physical attacks.
Is the only way I can get seats.
> Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine.
>
> Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong.
>
> But.
>
> One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house.
>
> While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law.
>
> We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
Indeed.
However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation.
If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it.
> Really interesting table, showing how Labour's vote has been getting progressively more Remainy.
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1130489663439933440
This is irrelevant. Labour needs to attract Brexiters to ever form a majority. It's too late for them to go all out remain now anyway. That ship has floated off to Lib Dem and Green harbours.
Yes plus the premise of it is so bizarre "a fucking nursery". Of all things.
Not everyone watched it at 4.30 this morning like I did.
The official analysis of the Welsh opinion poll by Professor Roger Awan-Scully.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > Re. milkshaking, can't help thinking that in other circs the UK exceptionalists would be wanking over it as a marvellously eccentric & British protest compared to those ghastly foreigns with their riots, revolutions & assassinations (though we can't really take the moral high ground on the latter any more).
> >
> > Perhaps if they'd spent as much outrage as they're doing now on acknowledging the undercurrents that led to the murder of Jo Cox, the rise of the far right, the Enemies of the People & Betrayal headlines, Farage's dog whistling, the multiple dishonesties surrounding Brexit and the increase in boorish xenophobia, they wouldn't be greetin' about the roof needing fixed now.
> >
> > Speaking of roofs..
> >
> > https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1130385809939542016<;
>
> +++++
>
> What an absolute dick
>
> "Do you know how many f*cking years I spent in that pub????"
>
> I dunno, but I'm guessing it's a LARGE NUMBER
Not sure I entirely agree with you, for the reasons in my later post.
To be clear: the xenophobia and turning a blind eye to the rise of the far right etc I absolutely abhor. Too many on the Brexit side have been careless, whether negligently or deliberately, about how they have spoken about others and it has done their cause great harm and given cover to others to behave in unpleasant ways.
But one could easily rewrite your passage to cover the undercurrents that led to the murders on London Bridge or the Manchester Arena or the tube lines in 2005 or the murder of Lee Rigby etc, the rise of Islamist extremism, the dog whistling by groups claiming to be concerned about age-appropriate sex education, the multiple dishonesties about what diversity actually entails. All equally abhorrent. And there were far too many who turned a blind eye to what was going on and then got outraged when the mad and the bad acted on the words they heard and read.
The line between speech which is free even if the content is reprehensible and incitement to violence is a fine one but a precious one.
The difference between what should be criminal and between what is permissible - but in a well-ordered society considered unacceptable - is equally fine and equally precious.
All the things you describe are horrible. Some are rightly criminal. Some aren't. Boorish xenophobia is horrible. But it is not criminal. If it is to be then one should also be banning the use of terms such kuffir, which is also obnoxiously offensive.
> https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1130482004741505024
Shit. I agree with Blair. I feel dirty.
> Just looking at 5 Guys menu online..
>
> https://www.fiveguys.co.uk/download/uk/menu.pdf
>
> Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
>
> WTAF?!?!?
Five Guys is overpriced McDonald's for city millennials. These kids will buy anything.
>
> This is irrelevant. Labour needs to attract Brexiters to ever form a majority. It's too late for them to go all out remain now anyway. That ship has floated off to Lib Dem and Green harbours.
Yes, the point of the table is to show just how precarious their position is.
> Yeah no Game of Thrones spoilers.
>
> Not everyone watched it at 4.30 this morning like I did.
Did it cure the insomnia ?
Blair's not always wrong.
Tits and DragonsGame of Thrones but it is fair to say the show whilst still brilliant had a drop off when they ran out George R.R. Martin source material.> > @Cyclefree said:
> > Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine.
> >
> > Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong.
> >
> > But.
> >
> > One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house.
> >
> > While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law.
> >
> > We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
>
> Indeed.
> However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation.
> If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it.
Agree. But there is a difference between a self-denying ordinance i.e. I am not going to inflame a complicated and difficult situation, I am going to choose my words carefully and being banned from saying something which needs saying.
Sometimes it is necessary to say things bluntly and clearly not dance around an issue. Sometimes people's concern does need expressing or channelling rather than being suppressed and then being used by the malign in ways which lead to the sort of behaviour which can easily tip over into violence.
As ever where the balance should be struck is the difficulty. But it should not stop us from trying to find that balance.
> Mr. Stopper, indeed.
>
> Blair's not always wrong.
He is quite right on this.
He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. Stopper, indeed.
> >
> > Blair's not always wrong.
>
> He is quite right on this.
>
> He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
Pay for it themselves, you say?
Something which echoes a 1973 essay on Roe v Wade I was re-reading today:
https://www.texasobserver.org/molly-ivins-on-roe-v-wade/
…Abortion has been one of the messiest issues. Issues get to be messy not because reasonable folk disagree about them, but because irrational emotionalism infects them. And during the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years of public discussion of abortion, both sides have always seen the question, finally, as one of Right Against Wrong. This has been true of the abortion debate to a far greater extent than it is of public debates on such simple topics as defense posture, welfare reform, campaign spending and the like…
> > @dixiedean said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > Being rude, very rude, about politicians is absolutely fine.
> > >
> > > Threatening or inciting violence against politicians is absolutely wrong.
> > >
> > > But.
> > >
> > > One must be careful about seeking to stop the first on the grounds that it might lead to the latter. There is a line to be drawn - difficult as this might be - between saying that X politician is a complete and utter pillock who couldn't count to two, utterly puerile in his judgment and wholly unwilling to protect his country and, OTOH, inciting others to firebomb his house.
> > >
> > > While the former may be very bad manners indeed it should be permissible. The latter is criminal and should face the full force of the law.
> > >
> > > We have to guard against those who try to stop the former on the grounds that it is hurtful or offensive and that some deranged pillock might use those words to justify criminal behaviour. We have seen far too many examples of some people trying to use the "offence" card to justify extreme violence. The latter is never justified, regardless of how offensive one has been. Only incitement to violence should be legislated against. Not offence.
> >
> > Indeed.
> > However, we should be careful about what leads there. For 3 years we have had a rising tide of rhetoric, which uses ANGER and FURY in headlines. When what they are describing is, in reality amongst most sensible people, an increase in mild annoyance, frustration or irritation.
> > If you tell people they are angry, and, what is more, that their anger is not only entirely justified, but rather the righteous and correct response, then it is no surprise some will act on it.
>
> Agree. But there is a difference between a self-denying ordinance i.e. I am not going to inflame a complicated and difficult situation, I am going to choose my words carefully and being banned from saying something which needs saying.
>
> Sometimes it is necessary to say things bluntly and clearly not dance around an issue. Sometimes people's concern does need expressing or channelling rather than being suppressed and then being used by the malign in ways which lead to the sort of behaviour which can easily tip over into violence.
>
> As ever where the balance should be struck is the difficulty. But it should not stop us from trying to find that balance.
I agree with this. I just feel that we have overstepped the balance, and people have simply shrugged and not called it out.
FURY at 5p plastic bag charge!!
ANGER was rising today at RIP-OFF of hard working shoppers...
Really???
It has become so commonplace that we barely notice it.
If we are taught to be angry at that how do we react to war, torture, wrongful imprisonment, animal abuse, folk who cheat the elderly or with learning disabilities?
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1130454429134671875
Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though.
> Must be only a matter of time before someone lactates on Nige.
>
> https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1130454429134671875
>
>
Any word on if they've broken election law yet?
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1130482004741505024
>
> Shit. I agree with Blair. I feel dirty.
No one has done more to bring a PC culture to Britain than Blair. What a hypocrite.
But how the hell does bacon in a milkshake work? Is it like fruit in a Pimms?
> Must be only a matter of time before someone lactates on Nige.
>
> https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1130454429134671875
>
> <
+++++
Hmmm. That's a surprisingly weak poster. "Shame Breastfeeders" - followed by a moderately phrased opinion that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public - but do it discreetly. Some will find his opinion old-fashioned and wrong, some will agree. I'm not sure that's going to let slip the dogs of electoral war on Farage.
It's all the more surprising, because Farage has been saying some outrageous things - some downright racist, and genuinely offensive - for many years. So why choose such a relatively anodyne remark?!
> Wales Poll:
>
> Brexit 36%
>
> Bremain 37%
>
> Confusion & duplicity 21%
>
> UKIP are probably Brexit
Wow.
Looking at the polls, the is room in Britain for a socially conservative but party with socialist policies.
I think TMay half heatedly tried to offer that in 2017, but was never going to work as these voters simply don't see the Tories as for the working class.
If the Brexit Party can deliver a coherent (tough ask I know...) group of policies after the Euro elections then maybe that could be them. There is plenty of areas that would like such a party.
https://twitter.com/andrewpicken1/status/1130501161172254720
Reports of an audible screech of disappointment from 67 Northumberland St are yet to be confirmed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/queen-elizabeth-said-future-of-britain-lies-in-eu-declassified-german-diplomatic-records-show/ar-AABCRFr?ocid=spartanntp
> Just looking at 5 Guys menu online..
>
> https://www.fiveguys.co.uk/download/uk/menu.pdf
>
> Under milkshakes it says "Add bacon to any shake!"
>
> WTAF?!?!?
>
> Though disgusting, it actually makes a certain amount of sense - along similar lines to salted caramel.
> Milkshakes are pretty disgusting at the best of times, though.
>
> I like salted caramel. I also liked having pancakes with bacon and maple syrup when I was in the US. I can deal with sweet/salty mixes.
>
> But how the hell does bacon in a milkshake work? Is it like fruit in a Pimms?
You use it in the same way as you would with a flake in a Mr Whippy it would seem.
https://www.bacontoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TAG-Burger-Bar-Pineapple-Bacon-Milkshake.jpg
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. Stopper, indeed.
> >
> > Blair's not always wrong.
>
> He is quite right on this.
>
> He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
Or Arron Banks does.
> > @brendan16 said:
> > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > Mr. Stopper, indeed.
> > >
> > > Blair's not always wrong.
> >
> > He is quite right on this.
> >
> > He is of course lucky himself to have 24 your special branch protection paid for by the taxpayer. Most politicians includIng Farage aren’t so lucky and either go without or have to pay for it themselves.
>
> Or Arron Banks does.
Much better that his mate pays for it than the taxpayer. Sad that anyone needs 3 or 4 bodyguards though.
> > @isam said:
> > Wales Poll:
> >
> > Brexit 36%
> >
> > Bremain 37%
> >
> > Confusion & duplicity 21%
> >
> > UKIP are probably Brexit
>
> Wow.
>
> Looking at the polls, the is room in Britain for a socially conservative but party with socialist policies.
>
> I think TMay half heatedly tried to offer that in 2017, but was never going to work as these voters simply don't see the Tories as for the working class.
>
> If the Brexit Party can deliver a coherent (tough ask I know...) group of policies after the Euro elections then maybe that could be them. There is plenty of areas that would like such a party.
Yeah, but they won't. Cos one N Farage will write the manifesto. It will not have any economic policies which could be anywhere near described "Socialist."
> This must be upsetting for uber-nationalists. Ma'am is not amused by Brexit perhaps?
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/queen-elizabeth-said-future-of-britain-lies-in-eu-declassified-german-diplomatic-records-show/ar-AABCRFr?ocid=spartanntp
What's the saying, you get more conservative the older you get?
> ...The line between speech which is free even if the content is reprehensible and incitement to violence is a fine one but a precious one.
>
> The difference between what should be criminal and between what is permissible - but in a well-ordered society considered unacceptable - is equally fine and equally precious...
>
>
> The lines are precious, but I'm not sure they are fine, so much as messy and disputed.
>
> Something which echoes a 1973 essay on Roe v Wade I was re-reading today:
>
> https://www.texasobserver.org/molly-ivins-on-roe-v-wade/
> …Abortion has been one of the messiest issues. Issues get to be messy not because reasonable folk disagree about them, but because irrational emotionalism infects them. And during the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years of public discussion of abortion, both sides have always seen the question, finally, as one of Right Against Wrong. This has been true of the abortion debate to a far greater extent than it is of public debates on such simple topics as defense posture, welfare reform, campaign spending and the like…
It's in part because we have lost a belief in "live and let live". There are things I would not ever do myself but if others want to, so be it. Instead, we are in danger of becoming people who think that there is only one limited range of "received opinion" (and way of life) and anyone straying outside that is somehow wrong and not to be borne.
Ironically, in a largely secular age, it is a very religious way of looking at the world. The Inquisition felt that it was right to kill people for believing the wrong things in order to save their soul. We have some of that mentality still - that those who don't think like us should somehow not be allowed.
Abortion is a difficult one. If you think life begins at conception and is sacred then killing it, for whatever reason is a moral wrong. Fine: don't do it.
But too many people taking that view then go on to think that this should give them the right to impose this view on others, even if they don't believe it. That is where I part company with them.
I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. If I had been faced with an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or carrying a deformed child I don't know how, in practice, I would have reacted.
But I would not dream of telling other women that they should react in the same way as me. Some people do think that they ought - for religious or other reasons - tell other people how to behave and think, even on issues of conscience. Conscience is to me a personal matter - relating to one's own actions - not a stick with which to beat others.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/20/pro-anti-brexit-parties-neck-and-neck-eu-election-poll
Seven in 10 ethnic minority people now report having faced racial discrimination, compared to 58% before the EU vote in January 2016, according to polling data seen by the Guardian.
It comes amid rising concern at the use of divisive rhetoric in public ahead of this week’s European parliament elections, where some leading candidates, including Ukip’s Carl Benjamin and independent Tommy Robinson, have records of overt racism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/racism-on-the-rise-since-brexit-vote-nationwide-study-reveals
> This must be upsetting for uber-nationalists. Ma'am is not amused by Brexit perhaps?
>
>
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/queen-elizabeth-said-future-of-britain-lies-in-eu-declassified-german-diplomatic-records-show/ar-AABCRFr?ocid=spartanntp
>
> The Queen is basically a one nation Tory I think.
Most people with a sense of patriotism, devotion to duty and who have historical perspective are, so it wouldn't surprise me!
> New Euro poll puts Tories on 8% and Lab 16%.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/20/pro-anti-brexit-parties-neck-and-neck-eu-election-poll
Brexit Party 33%
Lib Dems 17%
Lab 16%.
Greens 9%
Tories 8%
> New Euro poll puts Tories on 8% and Lab 16%.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/20/pro-anti-brexit-parties-neck-and-neck-eu-election-poll
Interesting that Labour and Conservative have essentially become the parties of "don't know".
This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly.
The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
My point was that even the most finely drawn laws can do little to settle debates where unreason predominates.
> Plus the grammar is shocking. He probably does after all sit in the corner from time to time and not breastfeed mums. In fact I doubt he has ever breastfed mums.
Nige's isn't much better, how flamboyantly do you get your tit out to be 'openly ostentatious'? Must have been off marching in a beret when they were doing tautologies in English.
Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party.
> https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216
>
>
>
>
>
> This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly.
>
>
>
> The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
>
> It's ... essentially the Tory base.
>
> Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party.
That Dave Cameron really knew how to trash a party
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly.
> >
> >
> >
> > The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
> >
> > It's ... essentially the Tory base.
> >
> > Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party.
>
> That Dave Cameron really knew how to trash a party
Perhaps he and Corbyn are also being paid by Arron Banks?
Both Labour and the Tories have big problems .
The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems .
The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats .
>
> That Dave Cameron really knew how to trash a party
Will the party still exist by the time he publishes his book absolving himself of responsibility?
> Divisions within divisions .
>
> Both Labour and the Tories have big problems .
>
> The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems .
>
> The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats .
>
>
>
>
I agree with Nick (Boles)
> https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1130490441844105216
>
>
>
>
>
> This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly.
>
>
>
> The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
>
> It's ... essentially the Tory base.
>
> Not delivering any sort of Brexit could well kill the party.
>
> Is it worth having a political party whose base is full of Hard Brexiteers? A good chance to clear out some dead wood.
There is a lot of it to clear out! The only slightly reassuring thing for One Nation Tories is that Labour is under almost as much existential pressure
> > @nico67 said:
> > Divisions within divisions .
> >
> > Both Labour and the Tories have big problems .
> >
> > The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems .
> >
> > The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I agree with Nick (Boles)
Very funny . I know it looks a crude example of the voters in each party but I think it’s on the money .
It's been a consistently crude, uncomplicated and effective message from a bloke who's never going to be in a position of power, and he's in a hell of a halcyon period with it right now.
It is going to be brutally honest, I suspect it will also not make good reading for Michael Gove.
> Divisions within divisions .
>
> Both Labour and the Tories have big problems .
>
> The Labour traditional working class vote is shrinking as the party becomes the home of the rich who feel guilty , for the university educated and the poor who don’t blame immigration for their problems .
>
> The Tories are now split between the rich Shire Miss Marple fans the city socially liberal who like the fiscal Conservatism, and the working class who dislike immigration and wear MBGA or should that be MEGA baseball hats .
>
>
>
>
And todays confrontation with Jess Phillips and the leader of the group of parents taking their children out of school because the school is teaching LBGT matters. This is a labour politician in direct conflict with the Muslim community and it is spreading throughout Birmingham and England with Christians joining the revolt
Where is tolerance when it is so desperately needed
Outside of brexit this is a developing and serious crisis in our schools efforts to teach tolerance
>
> He's not absolving himself of the blame, he'll take more than his fair share of blame.
>
> It is going to be brutally honest, I suspect it will also not make good reading for Michael Gove.
-------------
Have you read it or spoken to people who have?
> Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine?
I hope so. It would be a start of regaining the one nation party I believe in
> This must be upsetting for uber-nationalists. Ma'am is not amused by Brexit perhaps?
>
>
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/queen-elizabeth-said-future-of-britain-lies-in-eu-declassified-german-diplomatic-records-show/ar-AABCRFr?ocid=spartanntp
>
> The Queen is basically a one nation Tory I think.
It has occurred to me that the even if the Queen might have sympathies towards Brexit, she certainly won’t like the current political climate. If party loyalty is breaking down, perhaps more than just our membership of the EU is at stake.
> Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine?
I believe all peers or MPs who have advocated voting for another party have or will shortly be thrown out.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine?
>
> I believe all peers or MPs who have advocated voting for another party have or will shortly be thrown out.
Excellent
All I will say is that Dave regrets the costs of Brexit (both in terms opportunities lost and how we've got here) and Dave now views Gove with the same love I have for Mark Reckless.
There was an interesting and rather depressing poll there which showed GOP and Dems voters now saying in alarming numbers they’d be very upset if their children married anyone who supports the opposing party .
And that’s beginning to feed through into the UK.
Identity and culture wars between Remainers and Leavers . This is really blurring the lines between the parties .
The first question now is not which party you support but how you voted in the referendum .
> Are these Conservatives who are voting for other parties going to be slung out? Or does this only apply to Lord Heseltine?
cheer up
Im sure Farage will get a huge boost in the HoL when their Lordships are told to F off and join Brexitl..l
keep cheerleading he couldnt do it without you
> This is madness. The vice chair of the Cons local party. Insane. Tories have lost their heads utterly.
>
> The new leader has a mountain to climb to save their party.
I think a problem is that everyone thinks the Euro elections are important but not serious. Important enough to bother to vote and vote differently from normal, but not serious enough to inhibit members from straying. I don't know any Labour members who are actually not voting Labour, but I know several who say "After careful thought I am sticking with Labour", as though it had been very much in doubt. They'd never do that for a GE or even for a local election.
> Surely the vast majority of Tories would love Farage to be their leader. The only question now is would he accept the post if they offered it.
I would not
> Re the latest Wales poll I fear that Labour's fence sitting may have damaged the Party irrepererably. I know a number of members who have voted Plaid or Green.
> Once you go over that white line there is no going back.
I would hope they face expulsion - as should Heseltine from the Tories.
> I suspect Dave will also be aiming fire at those who said in 2016 that No Deal was Project Fear but in 2019 say No Deal Brexit is the only true Brexit.
Unless theres a chapter called "Why George Osborne is a creep" it will lack all credibility
Is the Tory hierarchy just too frit these days?