> @TheScreamingEagles said: > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > > > @TGOHF said: > > > > > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > > > @TGOHF said: > > > > > > > > > Good docu on Fatcha on Beeb 2 . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kinnock spewing bile which is fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Anti-Christ had that effect on so many people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean Britain’s best PM since Churchill ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kinnock not fit to clean her boots. > > > > > > > > > > > > No - she was evil. > > > > > > Says the guy who wanted Corbyn to have a massive heart attack. > > > > I 'wanted' no such thing. > > You said you told Clive Lewis that the best thing for Labour at GE2017 was for Corbyn to be incapacitated by a major heart attack. > > Yet you have the gall to call others evil.
There is a big difference between saying - which I did - that Labour would have benefitted from Corbyn being seriously incapacitated and actually wanting it to happen.
> Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
Scotland. Beyond any doubt. Because of Ruth and the bigger picture against the SNP.
In the 2014 Euros the Cons got 17%, in 2017 they got 28%. Where do you see them on the Spectrum of those two results?
The Cons Revival in Scotland is mostly based on North East hard Brexit fishermen. Soft Brexit Ruth is not the candidate for them.
Unless she's hard Brexit Ruth at the moment, it's hard to tell.
> Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
Scotland. Beyond any doubt. Because of Ruth and the bigger picture against the SNP.
In the 2014 Euros the Cons got 17%, in 2017 they got 28%. Where do you see them on the Spectrum of those two results?
The Cons Revival in Scotland is mostly based on North East hard Brexit fishermen. Soft Brexit Ruth is not the candidate for them.
Unless she's hard Brexit Ruth at the moment, it's hard to tell.
West Midlands has looked less bad for the Tories than virtually everywhere else in the polling innards.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers.
I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer.
> The reason is obvious. > > They had run out of Martin's work.
Possibly, but they were collaborating closely with Martin who could surely have given them the plot for the future even if his books hadn't got there yet. What eventually kills you is surely the necessity of keeping the cast together; you can write the odd solitary deserter out of the plot, but if more then a couple decide they don't want to be typecast for life by the series you are stuffed.
> It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with.
And that is something you would _credit_ her for?
I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next.
I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
> @Benpointer said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > That, to me, is a baffling state of affairs unless you bring in the concept that she did not give the slightest stuff about Pinochet murdering innocent civilians. And if that's a measure of evil, Thatcher qualifies. You can decide for yourselves; I know what I think. > > > > > > I'm reminded of what Churchill said when asked about fighting on the same side as Stalin. > > > > > > I might disagree with Thatcher about whether Allende was a greater evil that required standing behind Pinochet, but I can see how that sort of argument might lead one to support an evil, to defeat a perceived greater evil, without one being evil themselves. It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past. > > > > > > It's the same sort of argument that many will use to justify their vote for Corbyn and his merry band of anti-semites. I wonder whether Labour Party members will continue to stand behind Corbyn when they no longer need him to fight the greater Tory evil? > > > > There was no reason for Thatcher to say what she did. She could perfectly well have said that Chile had helped Britain during the Falklands War, that we were grateful for that help but that no one is above the law and that the legal process in Britain and Spain and Chile should be allowed to run its course without any interference from politicians. > > > > That is what a decent thoughtful politician would have said not rushed to embrace Pinochet as if he were her best friend. > > I am no supporter of Thatcher - far from it - but is it not probable that she was already suffering the early effects of dementia by the late 90s and that that affected her decision-making?
That may be the case. In which those around her advising her did her no favours. Someone will have seen the speech she wrote. Why did they not stop her if they thought she was not of sound mind at the time?
> @another_richard said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west? > > Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers. > > I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer. > > I'll be voting Conservative.
If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens.
I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
> @HYUFD said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > Thatcher: 1999-10-06 > > > "My friends, it's nine years since I spoke at a Conservative Party Conference. A lot has happened since then - and not much of it for the better...... > > > Today I break my self-denying ordinance. And for a very good reason - to express my outrage at the callous and unjust treatment of Senator Pinochet. > > > > > > But first I want to extend a personal welcome to our Chilean guests, who have come half way round the world to be with us. They should understand the deep sense of shame and anger we feel at the way in which Chile - its honour, its dignity, its sovereignty and its former ruler - have been treated. > > > > > > I do not know when or how this tragedy will end. But we will fight on for as long as it takes to see Senator Pinochet returned safely to his own country. Chileans can rest assured that, however contemptibly this Labour Government behaves, the British people still believe in loyalty to their friends." > > > > > > Evil is an overused word, but Thatcher was defending a fascist. And she was old enough to remember first hand what fascism did to people. > > > That, to me, is a baffling state of affairs unless you bring in the concept that she did not give the slightest stuff about Pinochet murdering innocent civilians. And if that's a measure of evil, Thatcher qualifies. You can decide for yourselves; I know what I think. > > > > Yes - it was utterly disgraceful by her. She seemed also to forget that a British citizen (a nun) had been tortured by Pinochet's goons. And that the legal system should not be interfered with for political reasons. It was a real low point for the Tories when their former leader started defending a man as evil as Pinochet. Worth remembering when people go on about Corbyn and Venezuela etc. Beams and motes. > > Pinochet played a crucial role in helping Britain in the Falklands War
Read what I wrote in my next post
"There was no reason for Thatcher to say what she did. She could perfectly well have said that Chile had helped Britain during the Falklands War, that we were grateful for that help but that no one is above the law and that the legal process in Britain and Spain and Chile should be allowed to run its course without any interference from politicians."
Chile's role did not give Pinochet a free pass from being subject to the law. No-one is above the law, no matter how many good things they may have done - and Pinochet is far from being such a person.
No democrat, no-one who truly believes in the rule of law could have come out with a statement which excused someone from being subject to the law purely because they had helped a friendly country.
> > > > > Anybody still waiting to see GoT final episode at 9.00 pm?
> > > > >
> > > > > Given it is 8.22, everyone is still waiting to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not TSE, who saw it early this morning in a vain attempt to treat his insomnia.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, look at the bright side. All those who wondered how they were going to resolve seven years' of plot in six episodes now have their answer. "Badly".
> > > >
> > > > No spoilers, but I am very very unhappy with this Season, and the way that it ended.
> > >
> > > I think it had it's problems as a season, I've not liked a lot of it, but I very much liked the way it ended personally. Not everything about how it did it, but the general tone of it, the broad strokes, I felt were very much in keeping with the series and well done.
> >
> > IMHO, despite some stunning action sequences, and outstanding acting, the overall plot and character arcs were appalling. "It came out of fucking nowhere" is how one of the leading actresses described her character arc.
>
> And on that I'd have.
>
> It put me in mind of S4 of Babylon 5, which rapped up a years long plot far too quickly because they thoughtwent.
The show runners had become bored with the project.
I'm on board with the idea of an idealistic young ruler gradually becoming a tyrant. But, I think it should take more than three episodes to become Fraulein Hitler.
I’d have though crucifying her opponents along the Appian Way in series 1 was a clue
The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west? > > > > Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers. > > > > I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer. > > > > I'll be voting Conservative. > > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative. > > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens. > > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less). > >
> @Benpointer said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > > > > > But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in. > > > Oops. Ben made the very same point. > > > > > > They don't need to. It's the legal default. Unless we ask for and get an extension or we revoke or pass the WA by 31 October, on that day the Article 50 period comes to an end and we are out of the EU. > > This is the same argument many were making before March 29, and before April 12. It's no more likely to be allowed to happen by the HoC in October than it was then.
The difference being that back then there was a PM with a deal and willing to ask for an extension. By October we will likely have a No Deal PM with no deal to pass and positively wanting to get out without any further extension. How will the HoC stop such a PM?
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past. > > > > I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with. > > > > And that is something you would _credit_ her for? > > > > I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying. > > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next. > > I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
No it doesn't. Pinochet was lawfully arrested and had all the benefits of proper legal process, something which his victims never got.
In allowing the legal process to take its course we are not selling out our friends. We are making instead a very powerful statement about the importance of the rule of law - as opposed to the use of violence to get your way - the principle for which we were fighting the Falklands war. And standing up for that principle is not at all inconsistent with standing by your friends. True friends would understand that.
> > I'm reminded of what Churchill said when asked about fighting on the same side as Stalin.
>
> >
>
> > I might disagree with Thatcher about whether Allende was a greater evil that required standing behind Pinochet, but I can see how that sort of argument might lead one to support an evil, to defeat a perceived greater evil, without one being evil themselves. It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
> >
>
> > It's the same sort of argument that many will use to justify their vote for Corbyn and his merry band of anti-semites. I wonder whether Labour Party members will continue to stand behind Corbyn when they no longer need him to fight the greater Tory evil?
>
>
>
> There was no reason for Thatcher to say what she did. She could perfectly well have said that Chile had helped Britain during the Falklands War, that we were grateful for that help but that no one is above the law and that the legal process in Britain and Spain and Chile should be allowed to run its course without any interference from politicians.
>
>
>
> That is what a decent thoughtful politician would have said not rushed to embrace Pinochet as if he were her best friend.
>
> I am no supporter of Thatcher - far from it - but is it not probable that she was already suffering the early effects of dementia by the late 90s and that that affected her decision-making?
That may be the case. In which those around her advising her did her no favours. Someone will have seen the speech she wrote. Why did they not stop her if they thought she was not of sound mind at the time?
Now there is a question which could be asked of the advisors and supporters of many powerful people through history. The answer seems to be that the acolytes are in thrall to leader.
Apologies for succumbing to Godwin's Law* but why didn't Hitler's advisers stop him invading Russia in 1941?
(To be clear Thatcher is not to be compared to Hitler!)
If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens . I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Benpointer said: > > > @dixiedean said: > > > > > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > > > > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > > > > > > > > > But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in. > > > > > Oops. Ben made the very same point. > > > > > > > > > > > > They don't need to. It's the legal default. Unless we ask for and get an extension or we revoke or pass the WA by 31 October, on that day the Article 50 period comes to an end and we are out of the EU. > > > > This is the same argument many were making before March 29, and before April 12. It's no more likely to be allowed to happen by the HoC in October than it was then. > > > The difference being that back then there was a PM with a deal and willing to ask for an extension. By October we will likely have a No Deal PM with no deal to pass and positively wanting to get out without any further extension. How will the HoC stop such a PM?
Which is why my money is on the government falling in such a scenario. A PM needs a majority. They currently have 5. Will be 4 if they don't win Peterborough. Can we seriously see fewer than 3 defectors if Hard Brexit is the stated policy? I can't. Besides they need to pass a QS. My government intends to do absolutely sweet FA till October...
> @ah009 said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past. > > I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with. > > And that is something you would _credit_ her for? > > I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
Present the WA for approval by the HoC subject to a legally binding three-way* referendum: No Deal v Deal v Revoke. (*Two-stage vote or STV so that the eventual winner gains a majority.)
On what grounds can any Leavers or Remainers object to that?
> > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
>
>
> I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with.
>
>
>
> And that is something you would _credit_ her for?
>
>
>
> I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
>
> The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next.
>
> I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
No it doesn't. Pinochet was lawfully arrested and had all the benefits of proper legal process, something which his victims never got.
In allowing the legal process to take its course we are not selling out our friends. We are making instead a very powerful statement about the importance of the rule of law - as opposed to the use of violence to get your way - the principle for which we were fighting the Falklands war. And standing up for that principle is not at all inconsistent with standing by your friends. True friends would understand that.
That's a distinction without a difference. Effectively, selling him out was exactly what we were doing. And if you or I were a foreign warlord or dictator looking to help the UK, we'd get a very clear message.
> > > > > Anybody still waiting to see GoT final episode at 9.00 pm?
> > > > >
> > > > > Given it is 8.22, everyone is still waiting to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not TSE, who saw it early this morning in a vain attempt to treat his insomnia.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, look at the bright side. All those who wondered how they were going to resolve seven years' of plot in six episodes now have their answer. "Badly".
> > > >
> > > > No spoilers, but I am very very unhappy with this Season, and the way that it ended.
> > >
> > > I think it had it's problems as a season, I've not liked a lot of it, but I very much liked the way it ended personally. Not everything about how it did it, but the general tone of it, the broad strokes, I felt were very much in keeping with the series and well done.
> >
> > IMHO, despite some stunning action sequences, and outstanding acting, the overall plot and character arcs were appalling. "It came out of fucking nowhere" is how one of the leading actresses described her character arc.
>
> And on that I'd have.
>
> It put me in mind of S4 of Babylon 5, which rapped up a years long plot far too quickly because they thoughtwent.
The show runners had become bored with the project.
I'm on board with the idea of an idealistic young ruler gradually becoming a tyrant. But, I think it should take more than three episodes to become Fraulein Hitler.
I’d have though crucifying her opponents along the Appian Way in series 1 was a clue
The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
> @isam said: > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative. > > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens > . > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less). > > Agreed.
I'm going to add to that.
Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help.
I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more.
Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
> @Sean_F said: > > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
And then changed when it suited them.
From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > > @Luckyguy1983 said: > > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > > > > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is something you would _credit_ her for? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying. > > > > > > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next. > > > > > > I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions. > > > > No it doesn't. Pinochet was lawfully arrested and had all the benefits of proper legal process, something which his victims never got. > > > > In allowing the legal process to take its course we are not selling out our friends. We are making instead a very powerful statement about the importance of the rule of law - as opposed to the use of violence to get your way - the principle for which we were fighting the Falklands war. And standing up for that principle is not at all inconsistent with standing by your friends. True friends would understand that. > > That's a distinction without a difference. Effectively, selling him out was exactly what we were doing. And if you or I were a foreign warlord or dictator looking to help the UK, we'd get a very clear message.
No. It is not a distinction without a difference at all. It is a very important difference between democracies and authoritarian or totalitarian countries. And standing up for that is very important. It's what Britain used to stand for. It's what the Tories used to stand for. It's what Thatcher at her best used to stand for.
And the failure to do so - when Pinochet was legally arrested in accordance withe the rule of law - by Thatcher and of the Tories who applauded her was a stain on her and them.
> @Benpointer said: > Here's what May should do next: > > Present the WA for approval by the HoC subject to a legally binding three-way* referendum: No Deal v Deal v Revoke. (*Two-stage vote or STV so that the eventual winner gains a majority.) > > On what grounds can any Leavers or Remainers object to that?
> The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help.
I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more.
Thatcher always operated from a firm belief in doing what she considered to be in Britain's national interest. Which I think is what we (I'm assuming you are) as British citizens would want.
> @Cyclefree said: > > No. It is not a distinction without a difference at all. It is a very important difference between democracies and authoritarian or totalitarian countries. And standing up for that is very important. It's what Britain used to stand for. It's what the Tories used to stand for. It's what Thatcher at her best used to stand for. > > And the failure to do so - when Pinochet was legally arrested in accordance withe the rule of law - by Thatcher and of the Tories who applauded her was a stain on her and them.
Wasn't Pinochet only allowed to be arrested because he had given up power ?
> @Luckyguy1983 said: The whole thing was grotesque.
It really wasn't. I know that because I have watched the whole thing and you haven't. The battles and murders arose out of the plot and made sense in a world loosely based on medieval Europe. They also were a lot less pervasive than you seem to think. One of the greatest set pieces involved some people climbing an 800 for ice wall - no shagging or fighting, just ice climbing. The least successful elements were the sorcery bits; Daenerys and her sodding CGI dragons were a right pain in the arse.
Watch a whole season and let us know what you think; watching 10 random minutes really doesn't put you in a position to condemn the whole thing, no matter how much all your chums at the golf club agree with you.
> @rcs1000 said: > You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here.
> @Benpointer said: > Now there is a question which could be asked of the advisors and supporters of many powerful people through history. The answer seems to be that the acolytes are in thrall to leader. > > Apologies for succumbing to Godwin's Law* but why didn't Hitler's advisers stop him invading Russia in 1941? > > (To be clear Thatcher is not to be compared to Hitler!)
I believe many of AH's advisers were drunk on the successes of 1940 and thought they'd win. Possibly more importantly, why didn't they advise him not to declare war on the USA?
> @another_richard said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created. > > And then changed when it suited them. > > From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
That's why they cheated. Even the burning of Kings Landing would be in accordance with the laws of medieval chivalry or the ancient world. Things went badly for cities whose commanders responded to demands for surrender, by executing the best friend of the opposing commander. That said, there seems no good reason to keep strafing a major economic centre you plan to inhabit, unless for the evulz.
But Britain has always been prepared to work with undemocratic regimes in order to further the national interest, or stop a greater foe. Always, probably with zero break since the 18th century or earlier, we are working with someone unsavoury in the world. If you stop doing that, great. If you want to continue doing it, it's impolitic to chuck these people under a bus when you've finished with them.
> @isam said: > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for. > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out.
Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em.
> @ah009 said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you. > > Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here.
Eh? Secret legal advice says not putting him in the final two breaches the Party's Constitution?
The famous Boris Amendment?
The argument seems to be that the process of selecting two candidates isn't in the party's constitution/
According to the party constitution:
"Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
> @rcs1000 said: > > @isam said: > > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative. > > > > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens > > . > > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less). > > > > Agreed. > > I'm going to add to that. > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
I'd wager that more and more people are starting to believe it would be a good thing for the government to fall. We need an election to clear the air and have a final verdict on Corbyn sooner rather than 2022.
Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
Labour have mostly maintained their unity/discipline when voting thus far. I would expect that to go out of the window after Thursday as the regional results show wild variations in Leave/Remain in different Labour areas. The overall losses will undermine Corbyn to the extent that Labour will be back in pre-GE17 mode.
6> @rcs1000 said: > > @isam said: > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > > > > > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > > > > > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for. > > > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal > > It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out. > > Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em. It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
We are actually considering extraditing an Erdogan critic for.... criticising Erdogan ?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/may/20/british-barrister-facing-extradition-to-turkey-over-tweets <i>A Home Office spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Ozcan Keles was arrested this morning in relation to an extradition request from Turkey. The home secretary must certify a valid request for extradition from a category 2 territory unless certain narrow exceptions in the Extradition Act 2003 apply. In this case, none of those exceptions apply.”</i>
> @radsatser said: > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in. > > Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10.
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > > @Luckyguy1983 said: > > > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. > > > > I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more. > > Thatcher always operated from a firm belief in doing what she considered to be in Britain's national interest. Which I think is what we (I'm assuming you are) as British citizens would want.
It wasn't really in Britain's interests for its former PM to attack the rule of law and its application to her illustrious friend. But even if I were to believe that it was, doing something in the interests of ones own group — a country in this case, the mob in the case of the mafia — which goes against the rule of law is hardly a yardstick for goodness. In fact, I'd suggest that law breaking is strongly correlated with evil.
Not that I'd like to be absolutist about that: there are noble reasons for breaking the law, and sometimes it's imperative to do so. But when it comes to trying to get a fascist off the hook because they helped you in a war, it doesn't feel quite as noble as breaking the speed limit to get an injured person to hospital.
It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 284 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
The results from non-metropolitan England and Wales look likely to put considerable pressure on Labour MPs who have thus far mostly stuck to the party line.
> > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
>
> And then changed when it suited them.
>
> From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
That's why they cheated. Even the burning of Kings Landing would be in accordance with the laws of medieval chivalry or the ancient world. Things went badly for cities whose commanders responded to demands for surrender, by executing the best friend of the opposing commander. That said, there seems no good reason to keep strafing a major economic centre you plan to inhabit, unless for the evulz.
People snap and lose control, even otherwise mostly decent, inasmuch as any conquerer can be.
> @HYUFD said: > 6> @rcs1000 said: > > > @isam said: > > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > > > > > > > > > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for. > > > > > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal > > > > It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out. > > > > Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em. > It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month >
Haven't you been predicting Lab MPs baking out the Tories for the last 3 Meaningful Votes?
But Britain has always been prepared to work with undemocratic regimes in order to further the national interest, or stop a greater foe. Always, probably with zero break since the 18th century or earlier, we are working with someone unsavoury in the world. If you stop doing that, great. If you want to continue doing it, it's impolitic to chuck these people under a bus when you've finished with them.
Britain did not chuck Chile under a bus by allowing the rule of law to operate in Britain.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you. > > > > Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here. > > Eh? I never said that.
No idea what happened there. My apologies, it clearly wasn't you I meant to reply to.
> @AndyJS said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > @isam said: > > > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative. > > > > > > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens > > > . > > > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less). > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > I'm going to add to that. > > > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for. > > I'd wager that more and more people are starting to believe it would be a good thing for the government to fall. We need an election to clear the air and have a final verdict on Corbyn sooner rather than 2022.
An “clear the air” election is about as convincing a concept as a “clean break” Brexit.
Eh? Secret legal advice says not putting him in the final two breaches the Party's Constitution?
The famous Boris Amendment?
The argument seems to be that the process of selecting two candidates isn't in the party's constitution/
According to the party constitution:
"Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
What's his beef?
His fellow MPs think he’s a bit of a tw*t and he won’t get into the final two.
> @Benpointer said: > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC?
Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens.
I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > > @Luckyguy1983 said: > > > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. > > > > I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more. > > Thatcher always operated from a firm belief in doing what she considered to be in Britain's national interest. Which I think is what we (I'm assuming you are) as British citizens would want.
Of course, the small problem then becomes determining what the national interest is, and there are significant differences in this.
> @radsatser said: > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in. > > Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10.
That's one possibility.
Another is that the Brexit Party ends up with 20% in the upcoming election, but end up being Allianced, and only get 35 seats. The big winners end up being the LDs who sweep up thanks to the Conservative vote being split almost everywhere, and Remainers swinging to them.
Jo Swinson finds herself with 100-odd MPs despite getting fewer votes than the Brexit Party.
> Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
>
>
>
> Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
>
>
>
> What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
>
> Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
>
> And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC?
Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens.
I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
Wait... and avoid the inevitable VoNC that a looming No Deal will cause.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Benpointer said: > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > > > And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC? > > Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens. > > I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
Yes, No Deal via inaction. The danger is that they get No Confidenced.
Eh? Secret legal advice says not putting him in the final two breaches the Party's Constitution?
The famous Boris Amendment?
The argument seems to be that the process of selecting two candidates isn't in the party's constitution/
According to the party constitution:
"Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
What's his beef?
His fellow MPs think he’s a bit of a tw*t and he won’t get into the final two.
I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the election of Cameron unconstitutional?
That would be ironic.
Brilliant. The last few years have all been a genuine nightmare and we will wake up to find David Davies is PM, and being brighter than Cameron, has taken Osborne's advice not to call a referendum.
Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
> @kle4 said: > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > > > > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created. > > > > > > And then changed when it suited them. > > > > > > From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8. > > > > That's why they cheated. Even the burning of Kings Landing would be in accordance with the laws of medieval chivalry or the ancient world. Things went badly for cities whose commanders responded to demands for surrender, by executing the best friend of the opposing commander. That said, there seems no good reason to keep strafing a major economic centre you plan to inhabit, unless for the evulz. > > People snap and lose control, even otherwise mostly decent, inasmuch as any conquerer can be.
Sure , but I think it's trolling viewers to portray someone as a heroine, albeit flawed, for seven and a half seasons, before converting her into a complete monster who has to be euthanised.
> @Quincel said: > > @rottenborough said: > > https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1130557554461958144 > > > > Will others follow? > > Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
Just imagine how well they would be doing if they had a charismatic and intelligent leader like Charles Kennedy.
I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the election of Cameron unconstitutional?
That would be ironic.
Brilliant. The last few years have all been a genuine nightmare and we will wake up to find David Davies is PM, and being brighter than Cameron, has taken Osborne's advice not to call a referendum.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @radsatser said: > > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > > > >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in. > > > > Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10. > > That's one possibility. > > Another is that the Brexit Party ends up with 20% in the upcoming election, but end up being Allianced, and only get 35 seats. The big winners end up being the LDs who sweep up thanks to the Conservative vote being split almost everywhere, and Remainers swinging to them. > > Jo Swinson finds herself with 100-odd MPs despite getting fewer votes than the Brexit Party. >
...The LDs then push a c+s agreement onto whichever Party will Revoke. (Labour). 5 years of Corbyn with no Brexit. A cunning plan worthy of the finest Leave minds.
> Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
Just imagine how well they would be doing if they had a charismatic and intelligent leader like Charles Kennedy.
God, I miss Charles Kennedy.
What mincemeat he would be making of Farage on QT in that laid back scottish burr way.
> @thecommissioner said: > It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 284 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month > > The results from non-metropolitan England and Wales look likely to put considerable pressure on Labour MPs who have thus far mostly stuck to the party line. > > >150 Labour seats voted Leave
Indeed and the Brexit Party will win huge victories in almost all those local authority areas on Thursday
> @rcs1000 said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @Benpointer said: > > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how? > > > > > > > > > > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make? > > > > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me. > > > > > > And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC? > > > > Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens. > > > > I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want. > > Yes, No Deal via inaction. The danger is that they get No Confidenced. > > It's a dangerous game our politicians play.
a> @Foxy said: > > @HYUFD said: > > 6> @rcs1000 said: > > > > @isam said: > > > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for. > > > > > > > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal > > > > > > It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out. > > > > > > Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em. > > It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month > > > > Haven't you been predicting Lab MPs baking out the Tories for the last 3 Meaningful Votes?
Not necessarily predicting but saying they are key to the WA passing, if not and they refuse to vote for the WA again they will be faced with either voting for revoke in October and risking losing their seats to the BP as a result or voting for No Deal with all the damage to the economy and their constituents' jobs and the Union that risks and Remainers not forgiving them
Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
Seeing Heseltine reminds me of when Dennis Pennis asked if it was true that the only harmony in the Conservative party was the stuff he sprayed on his hair
> @nico67 said: > Hammonds remarks are a shot across the bows of the no dealers who think a no deal PM will be able to make it happen through the Commons . > > The only way to no deal is through a referendum or general election . > > The only thing Labour re Brexit are united on is to stop a no deal . There are at max 5 MPs who would vote for no deal . > > Added together with ardent no dealers on the opposition and those in the Tory party and a way will be found to stop it . > > > >
5 is pretty generous. I make Hoey. Pretty sure there is no other Lab MP who has publicly gone there.
Just imagine if everyone had to pay 50p every time they sent an email, a tweet, or a Facebook message: the amount of petty insults would be a lot lower IMO. Making everything on the internet completely free hasn't necessarily been a good thing. I have the feeling that if it had been developed in Europe rather than the United States it would have been based on a subscription model rather than a free/advertising model. Now, some people might say that's a stupid thing to argue because the reality is that it was mostly invented in the US, but on the other hand it probably would have been developed in Europe eventually, even if had taken another 10 or 20 years; so it's not entirely correct to imply that if the internet hadn't been developed in the US it wouldn't have been developed at all.
> Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
Just imagine how well they would be doing if they had a charismatic and intelligent leader like Charles Kennedy.
God, I miss Charles Kennedy.
What mincemeat he would be making of Farage on QT in that laid back scottish burr way.
Charlie would more likely be making a rusty nail on ice..
> @AndyJS said: > Just imagine if everyone had to pay 50p every time they sent an email, a tweet, or a Facebook message: the amount of petty insults would be a lot lower IMO. Making everything on the internet completely free hasn't necessarily been a good thing. I have the feeling that if it had been developed in Europe rather than the United States it would have been based on a subscription model rather than a free/advertising model. Now, some people might say that's a stupid thing to argue because the reality is that it was mostly invented in the US, but on the other hand it probably would have been developed in Europe eventually, even if had taken another 10 or 20 years; so it's not entirely correct to imply that if the internet hadn't been developed in the US it wouldn't have been developed at all.
Mmm. I'd be on the hook for over 2k for PB alone. Much as I love this place and all...
Just imagine if everyone had to pay 50p every time they sent an email, a tweet, or a Facebook message: the amount of petty insults would be a lot lower IMO. Making everything on the internet completely free hasn't necessarily been a good thing. I have the feeling that if it had been developed in Europe rather than the United States it would have been based on a subscription model rather than a free/advertising model. Now, some people might say that's a stupid thing to argue because the reality is that it was mostly invented in the US, but on the other hand it probably would have been developed in Europe eventually, even if had taken another 10 or 20 years; so it's not entirely correct to imply that if the internet hadn't been developed in the US it wouldn't have been developed at all.
These services are built on the Web. Invented by an Englishman, and hatched in CERN, a european research centre.
None of this would be remotely possible without that invention.
Our very own PB would be an email list or some kind of bulletin board.
Labour got the most votes in 99 local authorities at the last Euro elections in 2014. It'll be interesting to see what the figure is on Thursday/Sunday.
Comments
So we have the by election on the 75th anniversary of D-Day to look forward to.
I think a few who have been hitherto reluctant to get this done are going to realise they have no choice if the polls are accurate.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
>
> > > @TGOHF said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @justin124 said:
>
> >
>
> > > > > @TGOHF said:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Good docu on Fatcha on Beeb 2 .
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Kinnock spewing bile which is fun.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The Anti-Christ had that effect on so many people.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You mean Britain’s best PM since Churchill ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kinnock not fit to clean her boots.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No - she was evil.
>
> >
>
> > Says the guy who wanted Corbyn to have a massive heart attack.
>
>
>
> I 'wanted' no such thing.
>
> You said you told Clive Lewis that the best thing for Labour at GE2017 was for Corbyn to be incapacitated by a major heart attack.
>
> Yet you have the gall to call others evil.
There is a big difference between saying - which I did - that Labour would have benefitted from Corbyn being seriously incapacitated and actually wanting it to happen.
The Cons Revival in Scotland is mostly based on North East hard Brexit fishermen. Soft Brexit Ruth is not the candidate for them.
Unless she's hard Brexit Ruth at the moment, it's hard to tell.
> What happens first? Brexit, or R. R. Martin releases the next GoT book?
The Heat Death of the Universe.
> Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers.
I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer.
I'll be voting Conservative.
> The reason is obvious.
>
> They had run out of Martin's work.
Possibly, but they were collaborating closely with Martin who could surely have given them the plot for the future even if his books hadn't got there yet. What eventually kills you is surely the necessity of keeping the cast together; you can write the odd solitary deserter out of the plot, but if more then a couple decide they don't want to be typecast for life by the series you are stuffed.
I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
>
> > > @ah009 said:
>
> > > That, to me, is a baffling state of affairs unless you bring in the concept that she did not give the slightest stuff about Pinochet murdering innocent civilians. And if that's a measure of evil, Thatcher qualifies. You can decide for yourselves; I know what I think.
>
> >
>
> > I'm reminded of what Churchill said when asked about fighting on the same side as Stalin.
>
> >
>
> > I might disagree with Thatcher about whether Allende was a greater evil that required standing behind Pinochet, but I can see how that sort of argument might lead one to support an evil, to defeat a perceived greater evil, without one being evil themselves. It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
> >
>
> > It's the same sort of argument that many will use to justify their vote for Corbyn and his merry band of anti-semites. I wonder whether Labour Party members will continue to stand behind Corbyn when they no longer need him to fight the greater Tory evil?
>
>
>
> There was no reason for Thatcher to say what she did. She could perfectly well have said that Chile had helped Britain during the Falklands War, that we were grateful for that help but that no one is above the law and that the legal process in Britain and Spain and Chile should be allowed to run its course without any interference from politicians.
>
>
>
> That is what a decent thoughtful politician would have said not rushed to embrace Pinochet as if he were her best friend.
>
> I am no supporter of Thatcher - far from it - but is it not probable that she was already suffering the early effects of dementia by the late 90s and that that affected her decision-making?
That may be the case. In which those around her advising her did her no favours. Someone will have seen the speech she wrote. Why did they not stop her if they thought she was not of sound mind at the time?
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
>
> Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers.
>
> I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer.
>
> I'll be voting Conservative.
If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens.
I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > Thatcher: 1999-10-06
> > > "My friends, it's nine years since I spoke at a Conservative Party Conference. A lot has happened since then - and not much of it for the better......
> > > Today I break my self-denying ordinance. And for a very good reason - to express my outrage at the callous and unjust treatment of Senator Pinochet.
> > >
> > > But first I want to extend a personal welcome to our Chilean guests, who have come half way round the world to be with us. They should understand the deep sense of shame and anger we feel at the way in which Chile - its honour, its dignity, its sovereignty and its former ruler - have been treated.
> > >
> > > I do not know when or how this tragedy will end. But we will fight on for as long as it takes to see Senator Pinochet returned safely to his own country. Chileans can rest assured that, however contemptibly this Labour Government behaves, the British people still believe in loyalty to their friends."
> > >
> > > Evil is an overused word, but Thatcher was defending a fascist. And she was old enough to remember first hand what fascism did to people.
> > > That, to me, is a baffling state of affairs unless you bring in the concept that she did not give the slightest stuff about Pinochet murdering innocent civilians. And if that's a measure of evil, Thatcher qualifies. You can decide for yourselves; I know what I think.
> >
> > Yes - it was utterly disgraceful by her. She seemed also to forget that a British citizen (a nun) had been tortured by Pinochet's goons. And that the legal system should not be interfered with for political reasons. It was a real low point for the Tories when their former leader started defending a man as evil as Pinochet. Worth remembering when people go on about Corbyn and Venezuela etc. Beams and motes.
>
> Pinochet played a crucial role in helping Britain in the Falklands War
Read what I wrote in my next post
"There was no reason for Thatcher to say what she did. She could perfectly well have said that Chile had helped Britain during the Falklands War, that we were grateful for that help but that no one is above the law and that the legal process in Britain and Spain and Chile should be allowed to run its course without any interference from politicians."
Chile's role did not give Pinochet a free pass from being subject to the law. No-one is above the law, no matter how many good things they may have done - and Pinochet is far from being such a person.
No democrat, no-one who truly believes in the rule of law could have come out with a statement which excused someone from being subject to the law purely because they had helped a friendly country.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > Here’s a question: which regions will the Conservatives hold up best in, proportionately? If their remaining voters are Remaining voters, does that imply the south east, the south west and the north west?
> >
> > Not all the Conservative's remaining voters will be Remainers.
> >
> > I think there will be some party loyalists plus supporters of May's Deal plus people who think Farage is a posturing trouble causer.
> >
> > I'll be voting Conservative.
>
> If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
>
> However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens.
>
> I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
>
>
I agree.
> > @dixiedean said:
>
> > > @Stark_Dawning said:
>
> > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
>
> > >
>
> > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
>
> >
>
> > But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in.
>
> > Oops. Ben made the very same point.
>
>
>
>
>
> They don't need to. It's the legal default. Unless we ask for and get an extension or we revoke or pass the WA by 31 October, on that day the Article 50 period comes to an end and we are out of the EU.
>
> This is the same argument many were making before March 29, and before April 12. It's no more likely to be allowed to happen by the HoC in October than it was then.
The difference being that back then there was a PM with a deal and willing to ask for an extension. By October we will likely have a No Deal PM with no deal to pass and positively wanting to get out without any further extension. How will the HoC stop such a PM?
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
>
> > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
>
>
> I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with.
>
>
>
> And that is something you would _credit_ her for?
>
>
>
> I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
>
> The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next.
>
> I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
No it doesn't. Pinochet was lawfully arrested and had all the benefits of proper legal process, something which his victims never got.
In allowing the legal process to take its course we are not selling out our friends. We are making instead a very powerful statement about the importance of the rule of law - as opposed to the use of violence to get your way - the principle for which we were fighting the Falklands war. And standing up for that principle is not at all inconsistent with standing by your friends. True friends would understand that.
Apologies for succumbing to Godwin's Law* but why didn't Hitler's advisers stop him invading Russia in 1941?
(To be clear Thatcher is not to be compared to Hitler!)
> > @Benpointer said:
> > > @dixiedean said:
> >
> > > > @Stark_Dawning said:
> >
> > > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in.
> >
> > > Oops. Ben made the very same point.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > They don't need to. It's the legal default. Unless we ask for and get an extension or we revoke or pass the WA by 31 October, on that day the Article 50 period comes to an end and we are out of the EU.
> >
> > This is the same argument many were making before March 29, and before April 12. It's no more likely to be allowed to happen by the HoC in October than it was then.
>
>
> The difference being that back then there was a PM with a deal and willing to ask for an extension. By October we will likely have a No Deal PM with no deal to pass and positively wanting to get out without any further extension. How will the HoC stop such a PM?
Which is why my money is on the government falling in such a scenario. A PM needs a majority. They currently have 5. Will be 4 if they don't win Peterborough.
Can we seriously see fewer than 3 defectors if Hard Brexit is the stated policy? I can't.
Besides they need to pass a QS.
My government intends to do absolutely sweet FA till October...
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
> I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with.
>
> And that is something you would _credit_ her for?
>
> I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
Present the WA for approval by the HoC subject to a legally binding three-way* referendum: No Deal v Deal v Revoke. (*Two-stage vote or STV so that the eventual winner gains a majority.)
On what grounds can any Leavers or Remainers object to that?
> If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
>
> However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens
> .
> I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
>
> Agreed.
I'm going to add to that.
Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
> The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help.
I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more.
"Hi, I work for John Hitler"
Any suggestions how I should respond?
> https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1130588867009155078?s=21
Dear me. If this is true, what a sense of entitlement the blond one has.
>
> The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
And then changed when it suited them.
From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
> > @Luckyguy1983 said:
>
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
>
> >
>
> > > It's probably to her credit that she stuck to that position and was loyal to Pinochet later, rather than turning against him once his use was past.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have read that sentence several times, and I can't parse it in any way other than you're saying that Thatcher stayed friendly with Pinochet not for pragmatic reasons, but because he was the sort of person she wanted to be friendly with.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And that is something you would _credit_ her for?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't think you and I share much in the way of values and I feel I could become quite impolite if I have understood you correctly. So I'll just say that I disagree strongly with what I think you are saying.
>
> >
>
> > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help. The opposite would be Western leaders' treatment of Gadaffi, sipping his champagne one minute and allowing him to be butchered the next.
>
> >
>
> > I'm not saying that makes me sympathetic to her having him over for tea and crumpets, but it does go some way to explaining her actions.
>
>
>
> No it doesn't. Pinochet was lawfully arrested and had all the benefits of proper legal process, something which his victims never got.
>
>
>
> In allowing the legal process to take its course we are not selling out our friends. We are making instead a very powerful statement about the importance of the rule of law - as opposed to the use of violence to get your way - the principle for which we were fighting the Falklands war. And standing up for that principle is not at all inconsistent with standing by your friends. True friends would understand that.
>
> That's a distinction without a difference. Effectively, selling him out was exactly what we were doing. And if you or I were a foreign warlord or dictator looking to help the UK, we'd get a very clear message.
No. It is not a distinction without a difference at all. It is a very important difference between democracies and authoritarian or totalitarian countries. And standing up for that is very important. It's what Britain used to stand for. It's what the Tories used to stand for. It's what Thatcher at her best used to stand for.
And the failure to do so - when Pinochet was legally arrested in accordance withe the rule of law - by Thatcher and of the Tories who applauded her was a stain on her and them.
> https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1130588867009155078?s=21
Eh? Secret legal advice says not putting him in the final two breaches the Party's Constitution?
The famous Boris Amendment?
> Here's what May should do next:
>
> Present the WA for approval by the HoC subject to a legally binding three-way* referendum: No Deal v Deal v Revoke. (*Two-stage vote or STV so that the eventual winner gains a majority.)
>
> On what grounds can any Leavers or Remainers object to that?
I would be ok with that
>
> No. It is not a distinction without a difference at all. It is a very important difference between democracies and authoritarian or totalitarian countries. And standing up for that is very important. It's what Britain used to stand for. It's what the Tories used to stand for. It's what Thatcher at her best used to stand for.
>
> And the failure to do so - when Pinochet was legally arrested in accordance withe the rule of law - by Thatcher and of the Tories who applauded her was a stain on her and them.
Wasn't Pinochet only allowed to be arrested because he had given up power ?
The whole thing was grotesque.
It really wasn't. I know that because I have watched the whole thing and you haven't. The battles and murders arose out of the plot and made sense in a world loosely based on medieval Europe. They also were a lot less pervasive than you seem to think. One of the greatest set pieces involved some people climbing an 800 for ice wall - no shagging or fighting, just ice climbing. The least successful elements were the sorcery bits; Daenerys and her sodding CGI dragons were a right pain in the arse.
Watch a whole season and let us know what you think; watching 10 random minutes really doesn't put you in a position to condemn the whole thing, no matter how much all your chums at the golf club agree with you.
> You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here.
> Now there is a question which could be asked of the advisors and supporters of many powerful people through history. The answer seems to be that the acolytes are in thrall to leader.
>
> Apologies for succumbing to Godwin's Law* but why didn't Hitler's advisers stop him invading Russia in 1941?
>
> (To be clear Thatcher is not to be compared to Hitler!)
I believe many of AH's advisers were drunk on the successes of 1940 and thought they'd win. Possibly more importantly, why didn't they advise him not to declare war on the USA?
>
> > @Sean_F said:
> >
> > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
>
> And then changed when it suited them.
>
> From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
That's why they cheated. Even the burning of Kings Landing would be in accordance with the laws of medieval chivalry or the ancient world. Things went badly for cities whose commanders responded to demands for surrender, by executing the best friend of the opposing commander. That said, there seems no good reason to keep strafing a major economic centre you plan to inhabit, unless for the evulz.
> Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
>
>
>
> Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
>
>
>
> Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
>
> I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out.
Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em.
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
>
> Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here.
Eh? I never said that.
"Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
What's his beef?
> > @isam said:
> > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
> >
> > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens
> > .
> > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> I'm going to add to that.
>
> Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
>
> Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
>
> Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
I'd wager that more and more people are starting to believe it would be a good thing for the government to fall. We need an election to clear the air and have a final verdict on Corbyn sooner rather than 2022.
Will others follow?
> > @isam said:
> > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
> >
> >
> >
> > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
> >
> > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
>
> It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out.
>
> Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em.
It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/may/20/british-barrister-facing-extradition-to-turkey-over-tweets
<i>A Home Office spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Ozcan Keles was arrested this morning in relation to an extradition request from Turkey. The home secretary must certify a valid request for extradition from a category 2 territory unless certain narrow exceptions in the Extradition Act 2003 apply. In this case, none of those exceptions apply.”</i>
Does not seem to pass the smell test.
> > @Stark_Dawning said:
> > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> >
> >
> >
> > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> >
> > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
>
> >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in.
>
> Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10.
Decimate means a 10% loss.
> > @Luckyguy1983 said:
>
> > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help.
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more.
>
> Thatcher always operated from a firm belief in doing what she considered to be in Britain's national interest. Which I think is what we (I'm assuming you are) as British citizens would want.
It wasn't really in Britain's interests for its former PM to attack the rule of law and its application to her illustrious friend. But even if I were to believe that it was, doing something in the interests of ones own group — a country in this case, the mob in the case of the mafia — which goes against the rule of law is hardly a yardstick for goodness. In fact, I'd suggest that law breaking is strongly correlated with evil.
Not that I'd like to be absolutist about that: there are noble reasons for breaking the law, and sometimes it's imperative to do so. But when it comes to trying to get a fascist off the hook because they helped you in a war, it doesn't feel quite as noble as breaking the speed limit to get an injured person to hospital.
>150 Labour seats voted Leave
> 6> @rcs1000 said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
> > >
> > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
> >
> > It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out.
> >
> > Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em.
> It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
>
Haven't you been predicting Lab MPs baking out the Tories for the last 3 Meaningful Votes?
https://youtu.be/nO44vzTLa7g
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > You are basing quite a lot from misreading my post, so it would seem futile to try and correct you.
> >
> > Corrections always welcome. I was quite keen to point out that I couldn't quite believe what I thought you were saying. It wouldn't be the first time folk have misunderstood one another on here.
>
> Eh? I never said that.
No idea what happened there. My apologies, it clearly wasn't you I meant to reply to.
I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the election of Cameron unconstitutional?
That would be ironic.
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > If one believes we should just ratify the WA, imperfect as it is, and leave the EU, then one should vote Conservative.
> > >
> > > However, I believe (and I could be wrong), that many Brexit Party voters are expressing annoyance at the lack of Brexit happening, not the exact form in which it happens
> > > .
> > > I believe that under most Brexit scenarios (i.e. where the UK actually leaves) then the Brexit Party rapidly heads to 4-7% (or less).
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> >
> > I'm going to add to that.
> >
> > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
> >
> > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
> >
> > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
>
> I'd wager that more and more people are starting to believe it would be a good thing for the government to fall. We need an election to clear the air and have a final verdict on Corbyn sooner rather than 2022.
An “clear the air” election is about as convincing a concept as a “clean break” Brexit.
> Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
>
>
>
> Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
>
>
>
> What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
>
> Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
>
> And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC?
Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens.
I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
> > @Luckyguy1983 said:
>
> > The justification is, Britain's foreign policy through the centuries, with some justification, has had a reputation of selling its friends to buy its enemies. Thatcher's continued loyalty to Pinochet seen in this light was the right thing to do - a signal that Britain sticks by those who help.
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that's the same moral code under which the mafia operate. The question under scrutiny here was whether Thatcher was evil; I'm not sure which side of that debate you're helping more.
>
> Thatcher always operated from a firm belief in doing what she considered to be in Britain's national interest. Which I think is what we (I'm assuming you are) as British citizens would want.
Of course, the small problem then becomes determining what the national interest is, and there are significant differences in this.
But the opening question on Venezuela - plus ca change....
> > @Stark_Dawning said:
> > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> >
> >
> >
> > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> >
> > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
>
> >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in.
>
> Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10.
That's one possibility.
Another is that the Brexit Party ends up with 20% in the upcoming election, but end up being Allianced, and only get 35 seats. The big winners end up being the LDs who sweep up thanks to the Conservative vote being split almost everywhere, and Remainers swinging to them.
Jo Swinson finds herself with 100-odd MPs despite getting fewer votes than the Brexit Party.
> > @Benpointer said:
> > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> >
> >
> >
> > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> >
> > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
> >
> > And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC?
>
> Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens.
>
> I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
Yes, No Deal via inaction. The danger is that they get No Confidenced.
It's a dangerous game our politicians play.
How very dare they!
> https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1130557554461958144
>
> Will others follow?
Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
> > @another_richard said:
>
> >
>
> > > @Sean_F said:
>
> > >
>
> > > The opponents had themselves crucified children. It was eye for eye, which is certainly harsh, but that's the world that the show runners created.
>
> >
>
> > And then changed when it suited them.
>
> >
>
> > From Varys promulgating vengence, fire and blood at the end of Series 6 to using child poisoners in series 8.
>
>
>
> That's why they cheated. Even the burning of Kings Landing would be in accordance with the laws of medieval chivalry or the ancient world. Things went badly for cities whose commanders responded to demands for surrender, by executing the best friend of the opposing commander. That said, there seems no good reason to keep strafing a major economic centre you plan to inhabit, unless for the evulz.
>
> People snap and lose control, even otherwise mostly decent, inasmuch as any conquerer can be.
Sure , but I think it's trolling viewers to portray someone as a heroine, albeit flawed, for seven and a half seasons, before converting her into a complete monster who has to be euthanised.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1130557554461958144
> >
> > Will others follow?
>
> Even if they don't the LDs will be delighted with the publicity. This has been number 2 on the BBC front page for most of the day. The big message the LDs are trying to push is that they are the remain party with momentum.
Just imagine how well they would be doing if they had a charismatic and intelligent leader like Charles Kennedy.
> > @radsatser said:
> > > @Stark_Dawning said:
> > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> > >
> > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
> >
> > >But that doesn't explain how they will get it through HofC? Without a GE of course. Which they will need to win a majority in.
> >
> > Surely its obvious, May will not go, enough of the 28 Spartans will jump ship to TBP, the government will collapse, but there will be no way that Corbyn will get the numbers to rule. A GE, both the Tories and Labour decimated. NIgel rides to the rescue with a majority and takes us out 20 mins after entering No 10.
>
> That's one possibility.
>
> Another is that the Brexit Party ends up with 20% in the upcoming election, but end up being Allianced, and only get 35 seats. The big winners end up being the LDs who sweep up thanks to the Conservative vote being split almost everywhere, and Remainers swinging to them.
>
> Jo Swinson finds herself with 100-odd MPs despite getting fewer votes than the Brexit Party.
>
...The LDs then push a c+s agreement onto whichever Party will Revoke. (Labour). 5 years of Corbyn with no Brexit. A cunning plan worthy of the finest Leave minds.
What mincemeat he would be making of Farage on QT in that laid back scottish burr way.
> It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 284 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
>
> The results from non-metropolitan England and Wales look likely to put considerable pressure on Labour MPs who have thus far mostly stuck to the party line.
>
> >150 Labour seats voted Leave
Indeed and the Brexit Party will win huge victories in almost all those local authority areas on Thursday
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @Benpointer said:
> > > Questions reposted from previous thread. This week's euros are a disaster for the Conservatives. Brexit Party triumphant. May goes at last. New Tory leader elected to deliver Brexit and move on from the awful mess.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Will they deliver Brexit? And how?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What difference will the rise of the Brexit Party make?
> > >
> > > Nigel's triumph will absolutely terrify the Tories into No Deal. They will see any further dalliance with the EU as being utterly toxic, and the leadership campaign will be a veritable Mr Universe parade for Hard Brexit. Of course, the economic fallout over No Deal will probably destroy them, and the Brexit Party will take their place, but the madness now seems unstoppable to me.
> > >
> > > And how will the Tories get No Deal through the HoC?
> >
> > Not that I want it to happen but the point is that they don't have to get it through the HoC. They just have to make sure that nothing else gets through the HoC in a form that forces them to do something. If they truly had a leader that wanted No Deal then all they have to do is wait until October and it happens.
> >
> > I am absolutely not advocating this but it is the obvious way they get what they want.
>
> Yes, No Deal via inaction. The danger is that they get No Confidenced.
>
> It's a dangerous game our politicians play.
And that's the problem.
It is a game to them.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > 6> @rcs1000 said:
> > > > @isam said:
> > > > Voting Brexit Party increases the chance of No Deal happening. But it also increases the chance of the government falling altogether.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, one could argue that the current government doesn't deserve to continue (and that's not an unreasonable argument), but in that event a General Election moves from a possibility to a probability, and that will end up being a proxy second referendum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Be careful, in other words, what you wish for.
> > > >
> > > > I think increasing the chances of No Deal increases the chances of MPs passing a deal
> > >
> > > It's an interesting question. I tend to agree that adding No Deal to the mix increases the possibility that moderate Remainers vote Deal to avoid a crash out.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, right now we're seeing a depressing hardening of positions around revoke and fuck'em.
> > It is Labour MPs from Leave seats who are the key swing voters on the Deal now, ERG hardliners and Remainer MPs will never vote for it but 40 or 50 of such Labour MPs from Leave seats joining the 286 who voted for it last time in either voting for the Deal or abstaining in fear at the rise of the Brexit Party or No Deal would be enough for it to scrape over the line next month
> >
>
> Haven't you been predicting Lab MPs baking out the Tories for the last 3 Meaningful Votes?
Not necessarily predicting but saying they are key to the WA passing, if not and they refuse to vote for the WA again they will be faced with either voting for revoke in October and risking losing their seats to the BP as a result or voting for No Deal with all the damage to the economy and their constituents' jobs and the Union that risks and Remainers not forgiving them
https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1130578503546675200
The only way to no deal is through a referendum or general election .
The only thing Labour re Brexit are united on is to stop a no deal . There are at max 5 MPs who would vote for no deal .
Added together with ardent no dealers on the opposition and those in the Tory party and a way will be found to stop it .
> Hammonds remarks are a shot across the bows of the no dealers who think a no deal PM will be able to make it happen through the Commons .
>
> The only way to no deal is through a referendum or general election .
>
> The only thing Labour re Brexit are united on is to stop a no deal . There are at max 5 MPs who would vote for no deal .
>
> Added together with ardent no dealers on the opposition and those in the Tory party and a way will be found to stop it .
>
>
>
>
5 is pretty generous. I make Hoey. Pretty sure there is no other Lab MP who has publicly gone there.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1130575845297467396
How can backbenchers do this if the government is committed to No Deal?
I really don’t want No Deal to happen but the Tories seem determined in their blind panic to impose this on us.
Mann, Flint, Baron are all deal not no deal brexiters
> Boris wont be too happy with his home base paper putting this out:
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1130578503546675200
>
>
>
> Transparently going after Boris' base. Good job Dom
They never suggest cutting NI do they.
> Just imagine if everyone had to pay 50p every time they sent an email, a tweet, or a Facebook message: the amount of petty insults would be a lot lower IMO. Making everything on the internet completely free hasn't necessarily been a good thing. I have the feeling that if it had been developed in Europe rather than the United States it would have been based on a subscription model rather than a free/advertising model. Now, some people might say that's a stupid thing to argue because the reality is that it was mostly invented in the US, but on the other hand it probably would have been developed in Europe eventually, even if had taken another 10 or 20 years; so it's not entirely correct to imply that if the internet hadn't been developed in the US it wouldn't have been developed at all.
Mmm. I'd be on the hook for over 2k for PB alone. Much as I love this place and all...
None of this would be remotely possible without that invention.
Our very own PB would be an email list or some kind of bulletin board.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP14-32#fullreport
Edit: the figure for the Conservatives was 89 council areas.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > Boris wont be too happy with his home base paper putting this out:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1130578503546675200
> >
> >
> >
> > Transparently going after Boris' base. Good job Dom
>
> They never suggest cutting NI do they.
Well the rate is only 2% for the higher earnings of these guys. So hardly worth worrying about