Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The deal has already been done in all the Welsh seats. That is 40 seats.
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
Worse than that . He’s basically saying he doesn’t give a fig if they come back to Europe and cause carnage .
The Kurds have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and the thanks they get is to be stabbed in the back and now the nutjob Erdogan is going to run riot .
Utterly despicable actions from Trump .
Not giving a fig is one thing, but I think he actually calculates that this would help his re-election campaign.
Well Russia helped create the first one, and Russia controls Trump. So it's less about what Trump wants and more about what he'll do. We need to have a sharp word with Turkey about this.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Live?
Have we travelled back in time? Can we rerun 2016 without the referendum?
I think it is very encouraging that we have developed time travel and are only using for responsible purposes, to enjoy historical moments like observing British General Elections.
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Live?
Have we travelled back in time? Can we rerun 2016 without the referendum?
I think it is very encouraging that we have developed time travel and are only using for responsible purposes, to enjoy historical moments like observing British General Elections.
Any chance we could use it to see how Brexit turns out and save ourselves months (years?) of endless debate?
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Mitt Romney was the one in 2012 who correctly identified Russia as the most serious strategic threat to the United States. He was laughed at at the time, because most people thought he was harking back to a very out of date view of the world, but in fact he was noticing the change in tone from Putin, from being a bit of a pussycat to adopting a quite nasty attitude towards the west. It was around the time that Putin was seriously embracing fascism.
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
It’s very unusual . I can’t remember that happening before. But we live in exceptional times .
The most important thing to remember is that - like a lot of rich people - he thinks only in terms of relative performance.
If the US does better than the EU, Japan and China, then his tenure has been a success. Even if the numbers are -10, -15, -20 and -25, then the US has outpeformed and he is a winner.
So, things that negatively affect the EU or China's economic growth (or political stability) are to be encouraged. Because they help the US "win", even if it is at the cost of Americans being - in absolute terms - poorer.
He what now? What does that...why is he...I give up.
I know Trump probably says a lot of things designed to provoke apoplectic or confused reactions out of people who already do not like him, and as astonishing as his remarks often are they haven't hurt him to date, but it's increasingly difficult to believe there's method in the madness.
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
It’s very unusual . I can’t remember that happening before. But we live in exceptional times .
Didn't the Cooper-Letwin Act (European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019) effectively do this too?
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
He what now? What does that...why is he...I give up.
I know Trump probably says a lot of things designed to provoke apoplectic or confused reactions out of people who already do not like him, and as astonishing as his remarks often are they haven't hurt him to date, but it's increasingly difficult to believe there's method in the madness.
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The deal has already been done in all the Welsh seats. That is 40 seats.
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
Are you sure? The article says only "key seats" and specifies "England and Wales", and that the dynamics are different in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It doesn't say that the deal will apply to all 40 seats in Wales. It could just be for half a dozen.
How likely is it today that a crowd would burst into 'For he's a jolly good fellow' following a declaration? I noticed that happened at both Billericay and Exeter in 1959.
Considerably less likely than in 1959 given a much higher proportion are not 'fellows.'
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
It’s very unusual . I can’t remember that happening before. But we live in exceptional times .
Didn't the Cooper-Letwin Act (European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019) effectively do this too?
The most important thing to remember is that - like a lot of rich people - he thinks only in terms of relative performance.
If the US does better than the EU, Japan and China, then his tenure has been a success. Even if the numbers are -10, -15, -20 and -25, then the US has outpeformed and he is a winner.
So, things that negatively affect the EU or China's economic growth (or political stability) are to be encouraged. Because they help the US "win", even if it is at the cost of Americans being - in absolute terms - poorer.
I remember a question to US citizens 25 years plus ago in the economist. At the time Japan was thought likely to outperform the US in the long-term. The question was to "stop Japan outperforming the US would they support a lower US growth rate, which would stifle Japan's growth" and the respondents replied in the affirmative. So it validates your view of Trump, thinking he is winning when he is losing!
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
I cannot imagine there would have been a previous time, because generally the way to achieve it would be to change the identity of the Prime Minister, and it is only the special circumstances of this time - the Brexit split crossing party lines when the leader of the opposition is so toxic to MPs who might otherwise cross the floor - that has made it possible.
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
It’s very unusual . I can’t remember that happening before. But we live in exceptional times .
I thought so too. Somebody downthread raised (facetiously I suspect) the prospect that the Benn Act infringed the PM's human rights. That reminded me of a recent column in the Sunday Times by Dominic Lawson which IIRC suggested that there is no precedent for parliament instructing a PM in the way the Benn Act does and that doing so is simply not the constitutional role of parliament. Might it be challenged in the courts on this basis?
My apologies if this point has been covered previously on PB.
Increasingly feel that the 25th Amendment is going to do for Trump before any impeachment.
Difficult to get away with that when he's so clearly lucid a lot of the time. He has his moments when one can believe he has dementia but he's clearly walking and talking, so any putative incapacity would be extremely difficult to justify.
How likely is it today that a crowd would burst into 'For he's a jolly good fellow' following a declaration? I noticed that happened at both Billericay and Exeter in 1959.
Considerably less likely than in 1959 given a much higher proportion are not 'fellows.'
And none of them is jolly good.
It was only ever being polite, I suspect, rather than as a genuine indicator of jolly goodness. I expect we have a rose tinted views of politicians of a bygone age. There are probably people nostalgic for MPs of the 80s, but of the ones who are left from that time probably only half are any good.
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The deal has already been done in all the Welsh seats. That is 40 seats.
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
Are you sure? The article says only "key seats" and specifies "England and Wales", and that the dynamics are different in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It doesn't say that the deal will apply to all 40 seats in Wales. It could just be for half a dozen.
In all the Welsh seats (except Ceredigion) there will be a Remain Alliance between Plaid Cymru/LibDems/Greens. That is 39 seats.
I don't know where OGH got the figure "70+" from for England & Wales.
Is anyone aware of any previous occasion where parliament has passed a law instructing a PM to do something and specifying how that something must be done? Is the Benn Act a first?
It’s very unusual . I can’t remember that happening before. But we live in exceptional times .
I thought so too. Somebody downthread raised (facetiously I suspect) the prospect that the Benn Act infringed the PM's human rights. That reminded me of a recent column in the Sunday Times by Dominic Lawson which IIRC that there is no precedent for parliament instructing a PM in the way the Benn Act does and that doing so is simply not the constitutional role of parliament. Might it be challenged in the courts on this basis?
My apologies if this point has been covered previously on PB.
Courts don't get to challenge Acts. That's what parliamentary sovereignty means.
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Mitt Romney was the one in 2012 who correctly identified Russia as the most serious strategic threat to the United States. He was laughed at at the time, because most people thought he was harking back to a very out of date view of the world, but in fact he was noticing the change in tone from Putin, from being a bit of a pussycat to adopting a quite nasty attitude towards the west. It was around the time that Putin was seriously embracing fascism.
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
Oh, this is good, we don't believe No. 10's account of the Merkel call, but Trump's recollection of a conversation with Boris is faultless fact untainted by opinion.
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Mitt Romney was the one in 2012 who correctly identified Russia as the most serious strategic threat to the United States. He was laughed at at the time, because most people thought he was harking back to a very out of date view of the world, but in fact he was noticing the change in tone from Putin, from being a bit of a pussycat to adopting a quite nasty attitude towards the west. It was around the time that Putin was seriously embracing fascism.
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The deal has already been done in all the Welsh seats. That is 40 seats.
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
Are you sure? The article says only "key seats" and specifies "England and Wales", and that the dynamics are different in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It doesn't say that the deal will apply to all 40 seats in Wales. It could just be for half a dozen.
In all the Welsh seats (except Ceredigion) there will be a Remain Alliance between Plaid Cymru/LibDems/Greens. That is 39 seats.
I don't know where OGH got the figure "70+" from for England & Wales.
It's from the linked Sky News article. Have you heard directly from Plaid Cymru, or do you have a different source?
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The deal has already been done in all the Welsh seats. That is 40 seats.
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
Are you sure? The article says only "key seats" and specifies "England and Wales", and that the dynamics are different in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It doesn't say that the deal will apply to all 40 seats in Wales. It could just be for half a dozen.
In all the Welsh seats (except Ceredigion) there will be a Remain Alliance between Plaid Cymru/LibDems/Greens. That is 39 seats.
I don't know where OGH got the figure "70+" from for England & Wales.
It's from the linked Sky News article. Have you heard directly from Plaid Cymru, or do you have a different source?
I think I have seen which parties will fight each Welsh seat somewhere -- I will try and find a link.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
The one that was an eye opener was I think the 1970 election repeat when Robin Day pretty much letched over Janet Fookes, he did have a thing for women with red hair.
Christ I cringed so hard my feet shrank three sizes.
Everyone will be slipping their shoes off, this is just jaw dropping.
“Outside, in the Bentley, ten minutes. And bring your friend”
Christ that is awful. The past is another country, indeed. Loved the bit of description of her hair colour "for those watching in black and white," though.
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Mitt Romney was the one in 2012 who correctly identified Russia as the most serious strategic threat to the United States. He was laughed at at the time, because most people thought he was harking back to a very out of date view of the world, but in fact he was noticing the change in tone from Putin, from being a bit of a pussycat to adopting a quite nasty attitude towards the west. It was around the time that Putin was seriously embracing fascism.
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
Romney 2020 perhaps?
For those who like things a little mystical, Mitt Romney is supposed by some to be the subject of a Mormon prophecy about someone who saves the US when its constitution is hanging by a thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy
Well, it is. And Mitt could* be the man to lead the Republicans in Senate to impeach that motherfker.
Tomorrow: Boris Johnson is going to hand deliver the letter to EU HQ while dressed as a mandarin duck, set fire to the building with vanilla vodka and cooks’ matches, and escape in a hot air ballon.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
Just watching a recording of the 'Tory Party at War'. Very funny particularly Alan Duncan. Speaks his mind! like 'Priti Patel the most useless and incompetent minister we've ever had'. Most of his predictions were right though Including that Patel would be in a Johnson Cabinet. What a bunch of shits the ERG were. How anyone voted for Johnson is just baffling. Surprisingly Farage is more likable than I'd imagined but in that company it's not too difficult
Tomorrow: Boris Johnson is going to hand deliver the letter to EU HQ while dressed as a mandarin duck, set fire to the building with vanilla vodka and cooks’ matches, and escape in a hot air ballon.
Sounds like a canard to me. Still, where there's smoke there's fire, and Boris is an absolut basket case, so it all fits.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
"Lord Hailsham is not an authority on socialism."
He had this great knack of sounding authoritative even when he knew the square root of bugger all about the topic 😆
I know you are sensitive on the subject, but I was under the impression that was the whole point of an Eton education!
Fake news, I'm afraid, Billy. Trump is a moron but he was actually talking about driving on the wrong side of the road by accident in a foreign country. I watched that segment of the presser, and Trump was very fair to be honest.
What he’s saying is the Kurds are acting out of their own self interest not because they are strong allies of the US and therefore we do t owe them any favours
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
Comments
There are 30 seats left for England & Scotland. Presumably this includes the seats with the current LibDem MPs.
In almost all the Welsh seats, I just don't think this "Remain Alliance" will have much effect, except to depress the Plaid Cymru vote.
Perhaps in Brecon & Radnorshire (though YDoethur argues to the contrary), perhaps in Montgomeryshire. All to the marginal benefit of the LibDems.
Good luck to Plaid in winning votes in the Valleys.
The plucky LibDems have left Plaid Cymru the job of knocking on the doors of the Brexit voting majority in these areas and telling them they’re as thick as two short planks and a bunch of racists and they can’t be trusted to vote the way 'the Remain Alliance' wanted them to.
"Asking for a friend"
Bojo dancing to Donald's tune
We need to have a sharp word with Turkey about this.
I was born in 1965 so that means ..... oops (disappears)!
The most important thing to remember is that - like a lot of rich people - he thinks only in terms of relative performance.
If the US does better than the EU, Japan and China, then his tenure has been a success. Even if the numbers are -10, -15, -20 and -25, then the US has outpeformed and he is a winner.
So, things that negatively affect the EU or China's economic growth (or political stability) are to be encouraged. Because they help the US "win", even if it is at the cost of Americans being - in absolute terms - poorer.
I know Trump probably says a lot of things designed to provoke apoplectic or confused reactions out of people who already do not like him, and as astonishing as his remarks often are they haven't hurt him to date, but it's increasingly difficult to believe there's method in the madness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2019
Are you allowed to use a foreign politician in your campaign material.
Clearly the best way for Labour is to tie Bozo to Trump .
Hang your heads in utter shame Republicans. How can you get up in the mornings?
My apologies if this point has been covered previously on PB.
He has his moments when one can believe he has dementia but he's clearly walking and talking, so any putative incapacity would be extremely difficult to justify.
😥
I don't know where OGH got the figure "70+" from for England & Wales.
*with bone spurs
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-car-crash-us-diplomat-uk-a9149746.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy
Well, it is. And Mitt could* be the man to lead the Republicans in Senate to impeach that motherfker.
*probably not
Tomorrow: Boris Johnson is going to hand deliver the letter to EU HQ while dressed as a mandarin duck, set fire to the building with vanilla vodka and cooks’ matches, and escape in a hot air ballon.
We may just have a change of PM without a GE, or the opposition may let BoZo twist in the wind until Feb or so.
I am sure the media are getting worse at reporting / spinning stuff.
Utter bollx.
Did she come back in between, or is this the same story reheated?
Possibly including banning wind farms near a golf course
That’s a plausible argument to make (even though he has made the wrong decision)
(As 17.4m boycott the 2nd referendum......)