To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.
It's an upgrade on fre Owls!
Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.
No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
You now seem to have same virus as HYFUD
When did the Tories expand the deficit?
Dancing on the head of a pin now, they have borrowed shedloads and squandered much of it. They are now throwing bribes about willy nilly. Next bung to DUP will be soon no doubt. They are lying charlatans.
He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.
OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.
But what could they do?
And would they?
The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.
The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
This is just appalling and foolish as a level of debate and interaction
There is no debate in this place. Just trench warfare with neither side gaining an inch.
im very happy to concede points.
But to grown-ups, not children throwing tantrums...
I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.
It's an upgrade on fre Owls!
Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.
No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
Yesterday, Gove stated that whatever money it takes will be spent on preparing for and mitigating the effects of a No Deal Brexit. Literally "whatever it takes". That is not sharing the proceeds of growth. That is the magic money tree.
I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.
It's an upgrade on fre Owls!
Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.
No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
You now seem to have same virus as HYFUD
Brexit Blinkers - like the ones horses wear to stop other things startling them, and probably for much the same reasons
Blinkers cut out peripheral vision. They are intended to minimise distractions and make the animal focus on the task ahead. They are rather cruel, since they remove part of the animal's natural defences and thus increase its fear and apprehension.
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I'm a bit surprised you Mike and Robert haven't shorted him already though !
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I'm a bit surprised you, Mike and Robert haven't shorted him already though !
Unlike Mike, I started out long Biden, and have traded in and out a couple of times. Starting to short him now.
I think Mike was right, but just too early on, about the age thing. You do now have to wonder how sharp Biden will be in four years' time, should he be elected. I would have said that's just ageist, but Biden has provided the evidence for concern over the last few weeks.
Right, I see. So you think pressure from the members would act on Tory MPs to do this even though most are opposed to No Deal. Maybe so. I see the logic. But I think not. I think they'd give him the extra time he asks for.
If they were that bothered about NDB they wouldn't have let the fat twat go through to the swimsuit round in front of the semi-gaga tory membership.
There is also no guarantee that the government could limp along for another six months. They are one Stephen Milligan away from losing their majority altogether at which point the whole Brexit Project could be lost in a GE.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.
It's an upgrade on fre Owls!
Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.
No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
Yesterday, Gove stated that whatever money it takes will be spent on preparing for and mitigating the effects of a No Deal Brexit. Literally "whatever it takes". That is not sharing the proceeds of growth. That is the magic money tree.
It is only magic money tree if it is balanced elsewhere.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Blinkers cut out peripheral vision. They are intended to minimise distractions and make the animal focus on the task ahead. They are rather cruel, since they remove part of the animal's natural defences and thus increase its fear and apprehension.
Cheek pieces are perhaps more palatable. Certainly I would rather wear cheek pieces than blinkers if I needed help to focus on a task.
Right, I see. So you think pressure from the members would act on Tory MPs to do this even though most are opposed to No Deal. Maybe so. I see the logic. But I think not. I think they'd give him the extra time he asks for.
If they were that bothered about NDB they wouldn't have let the fat twat go through to the swimsuit round in front of the semi-gaga tory membership.
There is also no guarantee that the government could limp along for another six months. They are one Stephen Milligan away from losing their majority altogether at which point the whole Brexit Project could be lost in a GE.
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
You have decided that Cyclefree was hysterically comparing Brexit to the break-up of Yugoslavia, She has explained that she wasn't. You have chosen not to believe her. Where is the room for debate?
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
"Leavers" are only a small subset of people who voted Leave.
Isn't what you are suggesting just Parliament legislating to remain?
No, although it might have to come to that. But that is for later, once we've got time as a country to consider what we actually want. The first stage is to remove the October 31st cliff-edge, which is brain-dead even under the stated policy of our esteemed PM (he still claims he wants a deal, which is clearly impossible by October 31st, even in the unlikely event that the EU were happy to meet his conditions).
The problem is that the vote was over 3 years ago. We cant just keep postponing.
He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.
OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.
But what could they do?
And would they?
The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.
The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
This is just appalling and foolish as a level of debate and interaction
There is no debate in this place. Just trench warfare with neither side gaining an inch.
im very happy to concede points.
But to grown-ups, not children throwing tantrums...
This place is largely Tantrum Central (in case you had not noticed)
These days I come here to rattle the bars and see how the inmates react. It is fascinating to see how they deny reality. Possibly even instructive.....
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
As I said, I await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like.
Foaming at the mouth because I point out that they are singularly absent does not assist your argument. The question is not why people voted as they did, but what comes next. No matter how self-confident your love of your country, if you stride self-confidently off a cliff you're going to end up in an ugly mess on the rocks.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
If by CANZUK you mean the vision that the UK should be a global-facing, independent, free trading positive country like Canada, Australia and New Zealand then yes I 100% back that vision. And it isn't crackers, it just might not be your choice.
If its good enough for Canada, Australia and New Zealand it is good enough for me.
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
Would the SNP obey the law?
Yes, of course they would.
That wasn’t the question.
Well what was it? Tartan terrorists?
You clearly dont know scotland....
It's you who focussed on Scotland. I was talking about the UK.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
Probably posted before but this by Pesto is IMO good on what is driving Brexit for those who voted for it.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
You can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. This is undeniably true. An omelette needs eggs and they must be cracked.
However the reverse is not true. If you have no clue what you are doing you can quite easily crack every last egg in your possession and yet fail to make an omelette worthy of the name.
In which case all you have to show for your efforts is a diminished larder and a godawful mess in the kitchen.
So, No Deal 31 Oct, eggs going neatly in the pan or all over the floor? I think we know the answer. So does Boris Johnson. Which is why I am still betting with confidence that it is a bluff. Political theatrics.
31 Oct will come and go without drama because we will have extended the deadline.
There is also the question of the cost of the eggs, and whether you want an omelette at all.
And whether you'd trust the current head chef to make beans on toast.
The problem is that the vote was over 3 years ago. We cant just keep postponing.
I have great sympathy for that argument, but it's not an argument for leaping into chaos (and, as part of that, postponing negotiations even further on what our future relationship with our EU friends will be).
You can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. This is undeniably true. An omelette needs eggs and they must be cracked.
However the reverse is not true. If you have no clue what you are doing you can quite easily crack every last egg in your possession and yet fail to make an omelette worthy of the name.
In which case all you have to show for your efforts is a diminished larder and a godawful mess in the kitchen.
So, No Deal 31 Oct, eggs going neatly in the pan or all over the floor? I think we know the answer. So does Boris Johnson. Which is why I am still betting with confidence that it is a bluff. Political theatrics.
31 Oct will come and go without drama because we will have extended the deadline.
There is also the question of the cost of the eggs, and whether you want an omelette at all.
And whether you'd trust the current head chef to make beans on toast.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
Probably posted before but this by Pesto is IMO good on what is driving Brexit for those who voted for it.
Unusually for Peston, that is very perceptive. For me, the one Brexit Bonus is that Johnson will only ever be remembered as the man who enabled the break-up of the UK. He will be seen as the anti-Churchill. He will hate that.
Blinkers cut out peripheral vision. They are intended to minimise distractions and make the animal focus on the task ahead. They are rather cruel, since they remove part of the animal's natural defences and thus increase its fear and apprehension.
Cheek pieces are perhaps more palatable. Certainly I would rather wear cheek pieces than blinkers if I needed help to focus on a task.
They are certainly a good alternative, along with nosebands and earplugs. I wouldn't ban blinkers. Racehorses have a pretty nice life (I want to come back as one) and it's a minor imposition, but I'd like to see more trainers using alternatives, which in fairness is the trend these days.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
We're still borrowing money. In what sense can we afford them now if we couldn't afford them then?
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
Would the SNP obey the law?
Yes, of course they would.
That wasn’t the question.
Well what was it? Tartan terrorists?
You clearly dont know scotland....
It's you who focussed on Scotland. I was talking about the UK.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
We're still borrowing money. In what sense can we afford them now if we couldn't afford them then?
The government can afford to borrow 1.5% of GDP, as opposed to 10% of GDP.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
As I said, I await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like.
Foaming at the mouth because I point out that they are singularly absent does not assist your argument. The question is not why people voted as they did, but what comes next. No matter how self-confident your love of your country, if you stride self-confidently off a cliff you're going to end up in an ugly mess on the rocks.
You keep on offering only apocalyptic versions of the future and implying that those who voted to leave were thick or malignant (or both).
Perhaps they just have different motivations and a different vision of the future than you. Consider that, perhaps.
My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.
Yes all these whizzo plans to stop no-deal Brexit look fine until you realise that they require Corbyn making all the right moves.
In reality then , no deal-Brexit is nailed on,for 311019. Hard to envisage another outcome. So from Corbyn's point of view, surely an election to be called after leaving ? Why then the talk of a VOFNC , as soon as parliament returns in early September ?
To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.
It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.
I write as someone who voted 'Remain".
But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.
It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.
And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?
Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
Would the SNP obey the law?
Yes, of course they would.
That wasn’t the question.
Well what was it? Tartan terrorists?
You clearly dont know scotland....
It's you who focussed on Scotland. I was talking about the UK.
whats your point then?
That the break up of the UK has a meaningful chance of happening, and that when you add in the consequences of a No Deal Brexit, the chance of it happening in an unpredictable and messy way is increased. Ignoring this is just misplaced exceptionalism.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
As Cyclefree pointed out yesterday, criminal justice should be one priority.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
They weren't affordable the deficit was 10x what it is now and debt was rapidly rising not falling as it is now.
What spending would you have cut that wasn't cut to afford this?
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
Probably posted before but this by Pesto is IMO good on what is driving Brexit for those who voted for it.
It is indeed a thought-provoking piece. I, and better qualified people than I, have argued for a while that the Remain campaign wasn't well run; it certainly didn't have the hope and optimism I remember from the 1975 campaign. One only has to look at the optimism and positivity with which the Mail and Express..... yes, really.... greeted Yes's history back then.
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
As I said, I await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like.
Foaming at the mouth because I point out that they are singularly absent does not assist your argument. The question is not why people voted as they did, but what comes next. No matter how self-confident your love of your country, if you stride self-confidently off a cliff you're going to end up in an ugly mess on the rocks.
You keep on offering only apocalyptic versions of the future and implying that those who voted to leave were thick or malignant (or both).
Perhaps they just have different motivations and a different vision of the future than you. Consider that, perhaps.
Once again, the complete absence of a prospectus is what I'm drawing attention to. This is not a difficult point but you seem determined not to grasp it.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
Considering that we do seem to be entering recession with negative GDP Q2 and a rather gloomy PMI and international Trade Wars breaking out, a bit of expanded government spending is probably a good thing. In terms of deficit, a lot must depend on whether tax revenues plummet or mearly falter.
A freeze on state pensions and benefits so that Leavers shoulder their share of the burden seems in order.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
My strategy is to back Harris and Warren for next POTUS. When one drifts and the other shortens, I top up on the drifter unless I agree with some specific reason for the drift, which up to now I haven't.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden claimed there are more than two genders, then blew up at a young woman who pressed him on the question.
“There are at least three,” Biden told an Iowa college student at the Iowa State Fair, after she asked him how many genders he believes exist.
But after the young woman asked the gaffe-prone candidate to explain what they are, Biden grew heated, according to a video of the interaction posted to Twitter on Friday.
“Don’t play games with me, kid,” he barked.
Moments later, he grabbed the questioner’s arm and pulled her toward him to emphasize his history of support for same-sex marriage.
“By the way, first one to come out for marriage was me,” he said.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
We're still borrowing money. In what sense can we afford them now if we couldn't afford them then?
In real terms as a proportion of GDP we aren't. Debt to GDP is going down not up.
We can start to afford things now we couldn't previously but must continue to lower debt while doing that.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
My strategy is to back Harris and Warren for next POTUS. When one drifts and the other shortens, I top up on the drifter unless I agree with some specific reason for the drift, which up to now I haven't.
Does Lucas' plan mean the remain campaign is starting to completely run out of ideas on how to actually stop Boris as they're not prepared for the nuclear option of installing Corbyn ?
Boris is certainly fortunate in his enemies. Lucas has actually proposed that Green-Plaid-Sylvia Hermon coalition!
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
More nonsense. Do you really think that all those who voted to leave the EU did so purely because of an "irrational and visceral hatred of the EU"?
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
As I said, I await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like.
Foaming at the mouth because I point out that they are singularly absent does not assist your argument. The question is not why people voted as they did, but what comes next. No matter how self-confident your love of your country, if you stride self-confidently off a cliff you're going to end up in an ugly mess on the rocks.
You keep on offering only apocalyptic versions of the future and implying that those who voted to leave were thick or malignant (or both).
Perhaps they just have different motivations and a different vision of the future than you. Consider that, perhaps.
Once again, the complete absence of a prospectus is what I'm drawing attention to. This is not a difficult point but you seem determined not to grasp it.
I was referring to your many posts on the issue over the years, not just this one.
it seems to me that the instruction was clear - "Leave the EU". That in itself is sufficient. A majority of voters do not wish to be subsumed into what is increasingly clear will be a single european superstate.
As i say, i think there are some problems with this vision which is why i voted remain. But i respect this view and we are where we are and so believe that vote needs to be respected.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
No, she probably cannot beat Trump, at best she is polling as well as Hillary against Trump while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
If by CANZUK you mean the vision that the UK should be a global-facing, independent, free trading positive country like Canada, Australia and New Zealand then yes I 100% back that vision. And it isn't crackers, it just might not be your choice.
If its good enough for Canada, Australia and New Zealand it is good enough for me.
It might interest you to hear that Australians are seriously considering joining their local version of the EU then.
Also I don't think CANZUK just means being a bit like those countries. I think the plan is to create an English speaking version of the EU where we run the shop as the biggest economy. It might not be completely crackers from our point of view, but surely would be from theirs.
I was referring to your many posts on the issue over the years, not just this one.
it seems to me that the instruction was clear - "Leave the EU". That in itself is sufficient. A majority of voters do not wish to be subsumed into what is increasingly clear will be a single european superstate.
As i say, i think there are some problems with this vision which is why i voted remain. But i respect this view and we are where we are and so believe that vote needs to be respected.
No, you were just taking an opportunity to flail wildly without bothering to read what had been written. In future, instead of spoiling for a fight, try responding to the words that had been written.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Interestingly the President of the French Channel Ports (Boulogne and Calais) has said that the scares about long delays at the ports post-Brexit are "la bullshit". He says both the French and the British are well prepared and traffic will keep flowing...
And I suspect he is rather better informed than most PB posters...
Nothing he has done so far, from the day the referendum was called until now, suggests that he will do anything other than just allow a Tory No Deal Brexit to happen.
"Present, but not involved" will be his epitaph.
Tabled a VONC when No Deal loomed. Rhetoric relentlessly anti No Deal. Consistently voted against No Deal. Whipped for Cooper Boles to head off No Deal. Official policy is to stop No Deal. Certain to try to bring down the government if they go for No Deal. All words, all actions pointing to vehement opposition to No Deal.
I was referring to your many posts on the issue over the years, not just this one.
it seems to me that the instruction was clear - "Leave the EU". That in itself is sufficient. A majority of voters do not wish to be subsumed into what is increasingly clear will be a single european superstate.
As i say, i think there are some problems with this vision which is why i voted remain. But i respect this view and we are where we are and so believe that vote needs to be respected.
No, you were just taking an opportunity to flail wildly without bothering to read what had been written. In future, instead of spoiling for a fight, try responding to the words that had been written.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Bernie, Biden and Warren are all in with a good shot. Harris is behind, slipping, and really has very little going for her which would suggest a recovery
My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.
Yes all these whizzo plans to stop no-deal Brexit look fine until you realise that they require Corbyn making all the right moves.
In reality then , no deal-Brexit is nailed on,for 311019. Hard to envisage another outcome. So from Corbyn's point of view, surely an election to be called after leaving ? Why then the talk of a VOFNC , as soon as parliament returns in early September ?
Because if Corbyn makes no attempt to stop No Deal, he becomes partly responsible and loses a substantial proportion of his vote, mostly to the LDs, who have already benefited from his dithering.
He has to make some effort, even if it is feeble, flawed and incompetent. On past form, it is likely to be all three.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
The fact that is your only (whining self centred) comment to an entire paragraph shows how wrong I might be! Never trust nationalists personified in one miserable remark. Thanks Malcom
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
They weren't affordable the deficit was 10x what it is now and debt was rapidly rising not falling as it is now.
What spending would you have cut that wasn't cut to afford this?
I would not have cut the deficit as fast. I do not think it was necessary to do it within the time-frame the government chose.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
The Pacers did serve a purpose. However, they were meant to be a 10-year stop-gap. Extending their life to 2020 (yes, the 144s will still be working in Yorkshire next year) was just treating passengers with contempt.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Sprinters are OK, at least they have four axles per carriage!
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
They weren't affordable the deficit was 10x what it is now and debt was rapidly rising not falling as it is now.
What spending would you have cut that wasn't cut to afford this?
I would not have cut the deficit as fast. I do not think it was necessary to do it within the time-frame the government chose.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Interestingly, this is happening in Nevada, another early state:
‘Warren has built a monster’: Inside the Democrats’ battle for Nevada
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
No, she probably cannot beat Trump, at best she is polling as well as Hillary against Trump while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably
I have to say, I am deeply sceptical that she can beat Trump.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Sprinters are OK, at least they have four axles per carriage!
150s with 3+2 seating are fairly rubbish. Plus many of the seats offer a very poor view out of the window.
158s are decent, but Northern have decided to replace the comfy seats with rock-hard ironing boards. Progress!
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
My strategy is to back Harris and Warren for next POTUS. When one drifts and the other shortens, I top up on the drifter unless I agree with some specific reason for the drift, which up to now I haven't.
Harris is now back to single figures in the polling (And trails Biden by 22 points), has low organisation compared to Warren, doesn't have the grassroots friendly messaging of Sanders, is unlikely to win Iowa. She's had her debate surge during which time she was the most horrendously short priced runner since Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Just because she WAS 2-1 doesn't mean she should be 13-2 now.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
The fact that is your only (whining self centred) comment to an entire paragraph shows how wrong I might be! Never trust nationalists personified in one miserable remark. Thanks Malcom
You don't like being shown the error of your ways it seems. I was merely pointing out that you obviously do not know the correct name of the 3rd largest party in the UK and helping you not to make the same basic error again. Apologies for trying to help you out. Otherwise good paragraph. PS: "Malcolm" not "Malcom"
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
No, she probably cannot beat Trump, at best she is polling as well as Hillary against Trump while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably
I have to say, I am deeply sceptical that she can beat Trump.
Well there is one candidate who consistently beats Trump in polls, has outfundraised all of his opponents and is capable of stringing a sentence together without gaffes.
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
Because if Corbyn makes no attempt to stop No Deal, he becomes partly responsible and loses a substantial proportion of his vote, mostly to the LDs, who have already benefited from his dithering.
He has to make some effort, even if it is feeble, flawed and incompetent. On past form, it is likely to be all three.
You cannot accuse empty space of anything other than being vacuous...
I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.
Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
If by CANZUK you mean the vision that the UK should be a global-facing, independent, free trading positive country like Canada, Australia and New Zealand then yes I 100% back that vision. And it isn't crackers, it just might not be your choice.
If its good enough for Canada, Australia and New Zealand it is good enough for me.
It might interest you to hear that Australians are seriously considering joining their local version of the EU then.
Also I don't think CANZUK just means being a bit like those countries. I think the plan is to create an English speaking version of the EU where we run the shop as the biggest economy. It might not be completely crackers from our point of view, but surely would be from theirs.
A variation of CANZUK was posited as an alternative to Common Market membership back in the day. Back then, India would also have been a member as a former nation of empire, though I doubt the CANZUKeers would be too keen on that now. (Australia and New Zealand also looked into joining the Common Market, though the idea never really took off.)
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
Nothing he has done so far, from the day the referendum was called until now, suggests that he will do anything other than just allow a Tory No Deal Brexit to happen.
"Present, but not involved" will be his epitaph.
Tabled a VONC when No Deal loomed. Rhetoric relentlessly anti No Deal. Consistently voted against No Deal. Whipped for Cooper Boles to head off No Deal. Official policy is to stop No Deal. Certain to try to bring down the government if they go for No Deal. All words, all actions pointing to vehement opposition to No Deal.
But apart from that ...
...Was famously inactive during the referendum campaign, which presented the right time and the right way to oppose leaving. It was always going to be difficult for him and his Party to row back from that one.
Like Brexit itself, it was a bad idea from the outset.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Interestingly, this is happening in Nevada, another early state:
‘Warren has built a monster’: Inside the Democrats’ battle for Nevada
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Interestingly, this is happening in Nevada, another early state:
‘Warren has built a monster’: Inside the Democrats’ battle for Nevada
Comments
Yes, of course they would.
But to grown-ups, not children throwing tantrums...
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
I think Mike was right, but just too early on, about the age thing. You do now have to wonder how sharp Biden will be in four years' time, should he be elected.
I would have said that's just ageist, but Biden has provided the evidence for concern over the last few weeks.
There is also no guarantee that the government could limp along for another six months. They are one Stephen Milligan away from losing their majority altogether at which point the whole Brexit Project could be lost in a GE.
This is a cartoon, toy-throwing level of debate which makes no attempt to understand why people voted as they did. This was complex and in some cases it was almost certainly a self-confident love of country.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
You clearly dont know scotland....
These days I come here to rattle the bars and see how the inmates react. It is fascinating to see how they deny reality. Possibly even instructive.....
Debate, in this place, died long ago ...
Foaming at the mouth because I point out that they are singularly absent does not assist your argument. The question is not why people voted as they did, but what comes next. No matter how self-confident your love of your country, if you stride self-confidently off a cliff you're going to end up in an ugly mess on the rocks.
If its good enough for Canada, Australia and New Zealand it is good enough for me.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-30/has-boris-johnson-forgotten-how-and-why-he-won-the-brexit-vote-writes-robert-peston/
In a word - if you can only have one - Identity.
But it still doesn't form much of a programme for the future.
The government can afford to borrow 1.5% of GDP, as opposed to 10% of GDP.
As some expected, Gasly has been dropped by Red Bull. Unexpectedly, his replacement is not Kvyat, but Albon.
Both Gasly and Kvyat must be gutted.
Perhaps they just have different motivations and a different vision of the future than you. Consider that, perhaps.
Hard to envisage another outcome.
So from Corbyn's point of view, surely an election to be called after leaving ?
Why then the talk of a VOFNC , as soon as parliament returns in early September ?
What spending would you have cut that wasn't cut to afford this?
A freeze on state pensions and benefits so that Leavers shoulder their share of the burden seems in order.
Well, that's a relief I suppose.
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1160812935788290048?s=19
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden claimed there are more than two genders, then blew up at a young woman who pressed him on the question.
“There are at least three,” Biden told an Iowa college student at the Iowa State Fair, after she asked him how many genders he believes exist.
But after the young woman asked the gaffe-prone candidate to explain what they are, Biden grew heated, according to a video of the interaction posted to Twitter on Friday.
“Don’t play games with me, kid,” he barked.
Moments later, he grabbed the questioner’s arm and pulled her toward him to emphasize his history of support for same-sex marriage.
“By the way, first one to come out for marriage was me,” he said.
We can start to afford things now we couldn't previously but must continue to lower debt while doing that.
it seems to me that the instruction was clear - "Leave the EU". That in itself is sufficient. A majority of voters do not wish to be subsumed into what is increasingly clear will be a single european superstate.
As i say, i think there are some problems with this vision which is why i voted remain. But i respect this view and we are where we are and so believe that vote needs to be respected.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-australia-joining-asean-is-a-great-idea-20180315-p4z4kk.html
Also I don't think CANZUK just means being a bit like those countries. I think the plan is to create an English speaking version of the EU where we run the shop as the biggest economy. It might not be completely crackers from our point of view, but surely would be from theirs.
Sunday only Hellifield to Clitheroe
Sats only Guide Bridge to Stockport
Sats only Retford to Barnetby via Brigg
https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1160654050943283201
The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
And I suspect he is rather better informed than most PB posters...
But apart from that ...
It is childish and detracts from your argument.
He has to make some effort, even if it is feeble, flawed and incompetent. On past form, it is likely to be all three.
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
The fact that is your only (whining self centred) comment to an entire paragraph shows how wrong I might be! Never trust nationalists personified in one miserable remark. Thanks Malcom
‘Warren has built a monster’: Inside the Democrats’ battle for Nevada
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/elizabeth-warren-nevada-democrats-2020-1449938
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178
“I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
Will they withdraw it from service at 2.20pm (14:20.05 to be exact)?
158s are decent, but Northern have decided to replace the comfy seats with rock-hard ironing boards. Progress!
I've not sampled the new 195 or 331 yet.
Quite agree, this blanket corporate face of the last Tory and Tory Coalition governments truly believed they could convince people we had no money for police or schools because these are seen as working class niceties to the Cam/Os/now BoJo brigade. The thought that a few extra Yachts will be sacrificed for some Bobbys' on the beat is not going to suddenly appease the downtrodden.
The Lib Dems found out that the people do not forgive this lightly; you will never convince middle England Tories how wrong it was as they are completely unable and unwilling to scry outside of their blue I'm ok Jack bubbles.
The unfortunate conclusion to all of this is that most of the fiercely loyalist unionist C1C2D's and E's now see a pact with a Scottish Nationalist Party as preferable to the Greedy bollocks Eton brigade as they are now seen much more as normal folk who at least talk some sense if not ultimately working to a concerning outcome.
Try to get the name correct , it is "Scottish National Party", there is no "ist"
The fact that is your only (whining self centred) comment to an entire paragraph shows how wrong I might be! Never trust nationalists personified in one miserable remark. Thanks Malcom
You don't like being shown the error of your ways it seems. I was merely pointing out that you obviously do not know the correct name of the 3rd largest party in the UK and helping you not to make the same basic error again. Apologies for trying to help you out. Otherwise good paragraph.
PS: "Malcolm" not "Malcom"
https://apnews.com/d34646b9511f4d119f7e1af4057d766e
https://twitter.com/renaehenry9/status/1160879655424937984?s=21
Like Brexit itself, it was a bad idea from the outset.
Neither are new
Along with a note that Nevada has barely been polled.