Why is Dim Dom telling us to "take a look at the postal votes"?
We are not allowed to do that. If only.
Raab is like Patel. He has a terrible resting face, which manifests itself at the start and end of media appearances. They're the only two egregious resting faces that i have noticed.
Get used to the faces. One of them will likely be next leader of the Tory Party.
Not likely to be a vacancy for many years. Plenty of time for someone else to come through the ranks.
You think? I'm expecting something to blow up in Bozo's face in the next couple of years that will result in his resignation. One of the holders of the Great Offices of State is a likely successor. And I don't think it will be The Saj.
Johnson is like Tony Blair, he's covered in Teflon, no matter what he does nothing sticks to him.
If he has a healthy majority he will be PM until the next election at least unless he chooses to go sooner. Then it depends upon whether he wins the following election or not, if he doesn't then his successor could be anyone.
In the early years Blair was genuinely popular and liked. Johnson isn't. A lot of people voting for him know he's not fit to be PM but he has the fantastic fortune to be up against Corbyn in a system that provides only 2 choices.
By this time next year his polling will be on the floor, Corbyn will be gone and he'll be fumbling around try to get a trade deal or breaking his promise about extending the transition period as a recession looms. Next Thursday will be be peak Bozo, it's down hill all the way after that. He can run away from an interview with AN but he can't run away from the problems he faces after next week.
With Bozo as PM, Raab as FS and Patel as HS what could possibly go wrong!!
Blair was relatively unknown before he became PM,never held a government job, been a mayor,had a newspaper column or appeared widely in the media.
14/nov Johnson was net -8, Corbyn -39. So Johnson has dropped 6 points, Corbyn has gained 1.
I think possibly the old Ipsos leadership/party ratings link (based on figures 2 months before elections) might not work during the campaign though, as the Con lead has often been quite a few points above it during the campaign period: last time +16 when the leadership figures suggested +11. If that repeats here, they might be +13/14ish.
Potential improvements to animal welfare is the/a* potential positive from Brexit.
Assuming no-one signs a trade deal that lowers standards again.
Anyone serious about animal welfare would be advocating the banning of halal & kosher slaughter.
In a country in which you can boil lobsters alive, and call it a delicacy when you're done? Really?
To say nothing of dogs bred specifically for Cruft's, some of whom are inbred to the point that they struggle with breathing.
Also note that we were in the EU for three decades and no-one seemed all that concerned about Spanish and Portuguese bullfighting during that time.
Very selective, people's ideas about what does and does not constitute animal cruelty...
Can slitting a live animal's throat & letting it bleed to death, be anything other than the worse sort of cruelty?
The sheer industrial scale of this cruelty makes the examples you have given pale into insignificance.
"Anyone serious about animal welfare would be advocating the banning of halal & kosher slaughter."
Good points about dog breeding and also religious slaughter. I wish the EU were stronger so it could say "Screw local laws, screw tradition, and screw 'God told you to do it'. Bullfighting, cockfighting, hunting with dogs, killing animals for 'sport', halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, vivisection - it's all banned."
The lines I've read here that one would save a child before a dog and therefore it's OK to stuff your face with the corpses of factory-farmed animals, and that one wouldn't object in all circumstances to killing a mosquito or a midge, therefore vegans are stupid and insane, are ludicrous. A favourite has been the observation that some farmed animals digest some plant material that humans couldn't, and "therefore" it's justified to use about 5-10 times more land to feed the average meat-eater than the average vegetarian. Is it seriously asserted that only thorns and human-indigestible stuff could possibly grow on the more than 80% of "food"-yielding land that is currently used for feeding farm animals? Most of that land wouldn't have to be used to produce food for human beings anyway. What a load of old rationalisation. Scoffing dead animal isn't done out of kindness and care for nature - as those who do it are well aware.
This is the last time I post on this, because I'd rather talk about electoral politics. Had a promise to ban vivisection gone into any of the parties' manifestos, that would have been great. Sadly it didn't happen.
Sky campaign check has just taken McDonnells £6,700 annual saving to the cleaners. It is a lie, misleads, and is not creditable when taking in inflation. Labour use a family where two members have train season tickets and 2 children but does not include the governments child benefits in their calculations. As Sky says this is not by any comparision an average family and in any case only 5% of families have two season rail tickets
Just how long can we put up with this mendacious nonsense
Comments
Can slitting a live animal's throat & letting it bleed to death, be anything other than the worse sort of cruelty?
The sheer industrial scale of this cruelty makes the examples you have given pale into insignificance.
And why didn't she just say: in future they won't?
...and just to contradict myself, I looked up Ipsos' last approval figures:
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-unpopularity-contest-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn-1011394
14/nov Johnson was net -8, Corbyn -39. So Johnson has dropped 6 points, Corbyn has gained 1.
I think possibly the old Ipsos leadership/party ratings link (based on figures 2 months before elections) might not work during the campaign though, as the Con lead has often been quite a few points above it during the campaign period: last time +16 when the leadership figures suggested +11. If that repeats here, they might be +13/14ish.
I can't see anything on twitter so i'm assuming there are some favourable polls imminent.
Good points about dog breeding and also religious slaughter. I wish the EU were stronger so it could say "Screw local laws, screw tradition, and screw 'God told you to do it'. Bullfighting, cockfighting, hunting with dogs, killing animals for 'sport', halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, vivisection - it's all banned."
The lines I've read here that one would save a child before a dog and therefore it's OK to stuff your face with the corpses of factory-farmed animals, and that one wouldn't object in all circumstances to killing a mosquito or a midge, therefore vegans are stupid and insane, are ludicrous. A favourite has been the observation that some farmed animals digest some plant material that humans couldn't, and "therefore" it's justified to use about 5-10 times more land to feed the average meat-eater than the average vegetarian. Is it seriously asserted that only thorns and human-indigestible stuff could possibly grow on the more than 80% of "food"-yielding land that is currently used for feeding farm animals? Most of that land wouldn't have to be used to produce food for human beings anyway. What a load of old rationalisation. Scoffing dead animal isn't done out of kindness and care for nature - as those who do it are well aware.
This is the last time I post on this, because I'd rather talk about electoral politics. Had a promise to ban vivisection gone into any of the parties' manifestos, that would have been great. Sadly it didn't happen.
Just how long can we put up with this mendacious nonsense
i always intend to watch it