The_Apocalypse said:

GIN1138 said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1017710363905855490?s=20

How did our politics become so infantilised? Neither side is better than the other.

So far the numbers protesting against Trump seem pretty small?

Are things supposed to liven up this afternoon?

The big protest is expected today, yes. Apparently members of Boris’ family are set to take part:
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1017695816889327616?s=21

One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...

It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.

So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.

Mr. Eagles, everyone honestly remembers things incorrectly now and then. Unlike your nonsensical ravings about Caesar, I, at least, have the good grace to acknowledge when my memory proved less than precise (as seems to be the case regarding Frenchmen to London).

GIN1138 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

GIN1138 said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1017710363905855490?s=20

How did our politics become so infantilised? Neither side is better than the other.

So far the numbers protesting against Trump seem pretty small?

Are things supposed to liven up this afternoon?

The big protest is expected today, yes. Apparently members of Boris’ family are set to take part:
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1017695816889327616?s=21

One good thing about Boris imploding is that we should soon stop hearing about his extended family...

It's like when the Blair's were on the scene and all Cherie's extended family were endlessly in the papers and on telly... Now we never hear from any of them.

So too will it be with the Johnson's soon enough.

His dad attempting to become a reality tv star (I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and Made in Chelsea) was ridiculous. Rachel is very ‘meh’ as well tbh.

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

bigjohnowls said:

I see Tories gained a seat from Labour in Pakefield yesterday. The 2017 results were as below. Anyone seen yesterdays tally??

Pakefield - Craig Rivett (C) 1,473, Melanie Di Gallidoro (C) 1,569, Sonia Barker (Lab) 1,333, Peter Byatt (Lab) 1,369, Rachel Fawkes (G) 182, Robin Hinton (UKIP) 384, Christian Newsome (Lib Dems) 190, Ben Quail (G) 162, Adam Robertson (Lib Dems) 215 and Phillip Trindall (UKIP) 367.

Pakefield (Waveney) result:

CON: 43.8% (+11.9)
LAB: 40.9% (-5.2)
UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9)
GRN: 4.4% (-8.3)
LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3)

Conservative GAIN from Labour.

In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.

The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'

And why jumping on local elections results is often not all that it seems

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

bigjohnowls said:

I see Tories gained a seat from Labour in Pakefield yesterday. The 2017 results were as below. Anyone seen yesterdays tally??

Pakefield - Craig Rivett (C) 1,473, Melanie Di Gallidoro (C) 1,569, Sonia Barker (Lab) 1,333, Peter Byatt (Lab) 1,369, Rachel Fawkes (G) 182, Robin Hinton (UKIP) 384, Christian Newsome (Lib Dems) 190, Ben Quail (G) 162, Adam Robertson (Lib Dems) 215 and Phillip Trindall (UKIP) 367.

Pakefield (Waveney) result:

CON: 43.8% (+11.9)
LAB: 40.9% (-5.2)
UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9)
GRN: 4.4% (-8.3)
LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3)

Conservative GAIN from Labour.

In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.

The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'

That’s why this country needs a Directly Elected Dictator on 15 year terms.

You won’t have to worry about NIMBYism and election losses.

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Apocalypse, not hugely surprising as Boris' sister is, I think, a Lib Dem now.

Mr. Elliot, either that or I just don't keep a record of all the information I ever hear...

Mr. Ace, went to check. Wikipedia's stats are, a bit unhelpfully, from the 2011 census which has 66,000 Frenchmen in London. Must admit, I find that astoundingly small. It's doubly unhelpful because Hollande was in office from 2012 to 2017.

I am not accusing you of being dishonest, just the sources you rely on. Have a Google. All those stories about emigrating Frenchmen won't actually mention how many are leaving and how it compares to the pre-Hollande period.

George speaks for the nation.

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

bigjohnowls said:

I see Tories gained a seat from Labour in Pakefield yesterday. The 2017 results were as below. Anyone seen yesterdays tally??

Pakefield - Craig Rivett (C) 1,473, Melanie Di Gallidoro (C) 1,569, Sonia Barker (Lab) 1,333, Peter Byatt (Lab) 1,369, Rachel Fawkes (G) 182, Robin Hinton (UKIP) 384, Christian Newsome (Lib Dems) 190, Ben Quail (G) 162, Adam Robertson (Lib Dems) 215 and Phillip Trindall (UKIP) 367.

Pakefield (Waveney) result:

CON: 43.8% (+11.9)
LAB: 40.9% (-5.2)
UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9)
GRN: 4.4% (-8.3)
LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3)

Conservative GAIN from Labour.

In the other Waveney result, the Lib Dems won a seat in Southwold from the Conservatives with 71%, in a seat they've never even contested before! In that case, they led opposition to an unpopular local development.

The British public cried - 'Oh Lord give us housing, just not near me.'

And why jumping on local elections results is often not all that it seems

I've always argued that you need about three months' local by-election results to give you a steer on whether a party is doing well/badly/averagely.

And, even then, you need to look at the starting point. Labour lost seats relentlessly after 1997, despite being miles ahead, because they had built up such a huge lead to start with.

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

Ooh I feel like @another_richard here, although of course not as twattish, irrelevant, misguided, or dim.

London military aircraft count:

Two more Ospreys overhead.

You seem to have a very strange obsession about me recently Toppo.

Perhaps you're feeling a little bitter about being wrong about so many things ?

Have you learnt yet what defence spending as a proportion of GDP means.

I do hope so as it would mean that your time here hasn't been entirely wasted.

LOL the truth hurts.

PB has a number of posters who might be described as 'posh Tories' - Charles, Richard Nabavi, DavidL, JackW ** and in earlier times Easterross.

Whatever people think about their opinions I expect they are universally regarded as behaving with intelligence and thought and dignity.

Perhaps you might model yourself on them.

Now I have some work to do.

** Apologies to anyone I should have included but missed.

What a bizarre post.

"Apologies to anyone [who is a posh Tory, presumably] who I have not called a Posh Tory". LOL

El_Capitano said:

grabcocque said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

George speaks for the nation.

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21

Nice, but I'd have gone with FUCK YOU, WOTSIT

I went to the Blenheim Palace demonstration last night. There were some marvellously inventive banners - I liked the kid with "Nellie the Elephant says no Trump Trump Trump" - but it was hard to top "SHITLER GO HOME" for pure invective.

From ages ago, but one of my personal favourites is...

https://twitter.com/EricKlinenberg/status/823020886101934081

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.

I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.

I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

TheScreamingEagles said:

George speaks for the nation.

twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21

Well, it's oft said he's the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm.

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.

I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.

I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

That is my view as wsll

Where's the Khan balloon ? I was looking forward to the London balloon wars, and am feeling short changed on tw@tter shitbaggery at the moment.

Pulpstar said:

Where's the Khan balloon ? I was looking forward to the London balloon wars, and am feeling short changed on tw@tter shitbaggery at the moment.

Keeping a low profile at the moment after some of them veered into Islamophobia.

Shamefully that includes Mickey Fab who lived up Dave’s maxim about Twitter yesterday.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.

I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.

I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.

As Barry Gardiner pointed out last night on Question Time, there is no going back to the Status Quo

We are past the point of 'No return' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYAtJnSINw

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, my understanding, which could be wrong (based on, I think, a Kuenssberg[sp] answer), is that we would lose the rebate as it's not included in any treaty but the Schengen/single currency opt-outs would remain.

But, as you imply, EU nations would need to agree.

We would also have demonstrated that we may shout about things we don't like, but in the end, we will always bend the knee.

Pulpstar said:

Where's the Khan balloon ? I was looking forward to the London balloon wars, and am feeling short changed on tw@tter shitbaggery at the moment.

The estimated flight date for the Khan balloon is sometime in August, last I heard.

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.

The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.

Edited extra bit: Churchill said:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”

I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.

I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.

I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?

What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.

That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.

Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

George speaks for the nation.

twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21

Well, it's oft said he's the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm.

I prefer Chris Brownridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs

bigjohnowls said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

George speaks for the nation.

twitter.com/george_osborne/status/1017714561833725952?s=21

Well, it's oft said he's the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm.

I prefer Chris Brownridge

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs

Who?

OchEye said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.

The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.

Edited extra bit: Churchill said:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”

I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?

Might have something to do with the state of the public finances in 2010?

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?

What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.

That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.

Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.

I would hope that we have a close and friendly working relationship with the EU after this with near frictionless trade, very similar standards on most things, co-operation on security, crime, pollution, research etc. I would very much hope that aggravation about these negotiations does not poison that. But I do think that we are heading in different directions and we are better leaving them to get on with what they want to do rather constantly dragging our heels, muttering under our breath and looking for opt outs.

Cyclefree said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, I'm surprised you're acknowledging the Davis white paper then immediately saying there's no alternative plan to the May white paper.

I can see why you and others prefer remaining to the May white paper. That may well be the point of it. Shortly after the referendum result I suggested it was possible the political class would 'negotiate' us an atrocious deal, then put it to the electorate with the alternative being to remain in, to force us to comply.

I genuinely don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.

I could live with May's proposal. But I don't think it will close down the issue. The first time a rule change is proposed which harms some aspect of Britain's economy and over which we will have no say the arguments about why we're not there fighting our corner, raising objections, building alliances will start.

I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.

It may not be cheap. But it may be cheaper than a crash out Brexit.

One prediction I will make is this: whatever happens Britain's relationship with the EU will continue to be a running sore in British politics for some time to come. The referendum and its aftermath has done absolutely nothing so far to establish a sensible long-term strategic working relationship between Britain and the European continent. This has been the key issue for British foreign policy for centuries and the likes of JRM with their "Fuck Europe" approach or those who think that Britain should simply do whatever the EU tells them are both peddling dangerous delusions.

Not sure JRM would use that language but Boris yes

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I confess that I am not clear why the Davis paper has not been adopted. How realistic is it? I.e does it have an answer to the NI question? Does it meet the EU's red lines? etc etc.



I would not start from here. But Remain may well be a better option provided we adopt a more intelligent and long-term strategy as an EU member than we have done until now. I do think that Brexit could have been made to work - but only it seems with more time, more intelligence, much more thought, a whole different class of politicians, an EU with a more strategic view of its relationship with a former member etc. That is not what is happening. So the choice now seems to me to be between doing Brexit very badly and damagingly or Remain.

So our incompetent political class will be able to develop a "more intelligent and long term strategy" if we remain but will continue with their present blundering if we leave? I mean, really?

What is absolutely self evident is that our political class lied about the very nature of the EU for decades as they signed up for ever more integrating treaties without our consent. We were in much deeper than was generally appreciated and getting out is proving much messier than the optimists believed. But the idea we want to go back into the quagmire giving up all hope of ever getting out at any point is horrendous and unacceptable.

That's why I said "provided". I agree that it would seem unlikely with our current political class. My hope - vain probably - is that the next generation are looking at what is happening and learning and thinking about what should happen next.

Some really serious thought needs to be given to what Britain's relationship with the Continent should be, whether in or out. I agree with you about what has happened. But we cannot change the past. We can try and learn from it to try and get a better future.

I would hope that we have a close and friendly working relationship with the EU after this with near frictionless trade, very similar standards on most things, co-operation on security, crime, pollution, research etc. I would very much hope that aggravation about these negotiations does not poison that. But I do think that we are heading in different directions and we are better leaving them to get on with what they want to do rather constantly dragging our heels, muttering under our breath and looking for opt outs.

+1

I’m convinced that the argument will blow over provided a deal is reached.

Amongst my peer group it already has. Only 1 person I know still bangs on about it, and is considered by my almost exclusively Remain voting peer group to be a Brexit bore.

Pulpstar said:

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

We don't know what price the EU would exact for allowing us to cancel A50 (let alone the political turmoil that would ensue) but I doubt if it would be cheap.

Disagree. Other heads of state would be very happy to see the Brexit headache go away, and it would be a huge vindication for the EU institutions (Commission, EP). If the British said they'd changed their minds, and it was credible (ie didn't look like it was just stalling for negotiating purposes) nobody would be dicking around trying to extract bigger fish quotas or whatever.

Andy Cooke's proposed solution of a two question second referendum with the four options available looks to be the best proposed solution to me:

Accept/Reject the deal

If the deal is rejected,

Remain in the EU; Leave the EU without a deal.

As 3 option referendum - deal, remain, leave with no deal, conducted in the same way as French elections with the top 2 options going through to the final round.

Just walked past the anti Trump protestors gathering in Portland Place.

Certainly a few thousand there plus the odd pro Trump supporter too including one with a US flag and 'Hillary for prison' baseball cap on

El_Capitano said:

I went to the Blenheim Palace demonstration last night. There were some marvellously inventive banners - I liked the kid with "Nellie the Elephant says no Trump Trump Trump" - but it was hard to top "SHITLER GO HOME" for pure invective.

https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/1017674252747771904

NEW THREAD

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

"What matters from the point of view of other member states is that the British government made a decision, and it wasn't going to suddenly change it again."

Not the British people then? Vernon Bogdanor made an interesting comment recently ... 'After the referendum, the people, not parliament, are sovereign.'

He's supposedly one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts and has written extensively on political and constitutional issues. Bloody experts, eh?

Isn't "Leave" a bit thin as far as a negotiating strategy goes? That was as far as the British people were asked to contribute. No problem with the govt committing to follow their order, but there are quite a few gaps to fill in.

OchEye said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ace, ha. Socialists always promise to tax the rich. The rich will either emigrate or be taxed to extinction. And then the middle class will be taxed. And before you can say "Comrades, we must all make sacrifices for the good of the Party" the vast majority will be paying more in tax.

The socialist experiment fails every time it happens. It's the essence of madness to continue committing the same folly and pretending it might be different this time because the earlier attempts weren't 'real socialism'.

Edited extra bit: Churchill said:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”

I have been assured that Osborne and Hammond have increased the national debt since 2010 by more than the total increase of all labour governments. If true, war would that say about the Tories?

While your statistic is indeed technically correct, it is utterly meaningless without them context of a government taking over in 2010 with a £175,000,000,000 annual deficit, that’s £500m a day in borrowing.

That we have managed to get down to only borrowing £100m a day eight years later is not a bad thing, although I agree that it should have happened faster and we should now be running a surplus building up reserves in preparation for the next recession.

I think the balloon is rather good. What would people prefer - an effigy as there was with George W Bush? It could be seen in the long history of British mockery non-violent protest.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A brief Scotch divertissement from B****t & T***p.

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1017669023084040192

The SNP are still running scared of a general election, obviously.

SNP down 3 points on the constituency vote and 6 points on the top up vote on 2016 in the Holyrood figures in the same poll

The web page headline is "Labour slip backwards in Scotland as SNP set to regain seats lost in 2017 vote"