Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
True. And this has been well-noted by Scots, who are about to punish both the Labour and the Conservative & Unionist parties.
Neither will get anywhere near the post of FM until and unless they make a sharp turn:
- Labour would need to veer back towards genuine, caring social democracy, lead by pleasant, likeable personalities;
- the Conservative & Unionists have an even bigger task, uncoupling from the mendacious gang in London, dropping the loony flag-waving act, and rolling their sleeves up and coming up with some thought-through, popular policies on eg. housing, transport and infrastructure.
Both tasks look daunting, and I just cannot see the necessary strong, principled future leader in either party. This is fantastic news for the SLDs in the medium term. Once they ditch the hopeless Swinson and Rennie, they have a golden opportunity to give Unionism the decent, respectable leadership it so desperately needs.
Labour will only have a chance of bouncing back in Scotland after independence IMO.
As Stuart says, Lib Dems will do nothing with Tory ( I want to be English ) Swinson and useless Willie as leaders
The (I want to be english) bit is new - what's behind that?
Listen to her and see her policies, southern Tory 100% and against Scotland having any say or powers in anything.
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Although it didn’t end terribly well for the Scots:
David is right on one point though - James I served in France under Henry V and later under Bedford. It was part of his captivity in England from 1406-24. That was very useful for Henry, as it meant any Scottish soldiers he captured could be dragged before their king, convicted of treason and beheaded.
Observe key words “in captivity”.
Folk doing bizarre things in captivity is a well-recorded phenomenon. P.G. Wodehouse springs to mind.
An individual, even a monarch, in captivity, fighting allies and beheading brave countrymen is not the same thing as Scotland, the nation, supporting the twat Henry.
So David’s “we” last night is simply preposterous. Unless he endorses medieval methods of “persuasion”.
The slaughter of the Scots seems to have been partly on their own heads: Bedford is also said to have sent a herald to Douglas once both armies had been deployed to ask what terms for battle he required, to which Douglas grimly replied that the Scots would neither give nor receive any quarter....
Grim times: Many of the English panicked in face of the Milanese advance and a Captain Young was afterwards found guilty of cowardice for retreating with the 500 men under his command without orders, considering the battle as lost. Young was hanged, drawn and quartered as punishment for his retreat...
If slaughter and grimness are your thing, look into the massacres of Berwick or at Durham, after the battle of Dunbar. Or indeed, more recently, the worlds first extermination camp at Norman Cross.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The b
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
True. And this has been well-noted by Scots, who are about to punish
Labour will only have a chance of bouncing back in Scotland after independence IMO.
Same with the Tories.
Unionism seems to be driving certain Scottish social democrats and conservatives quite literally bonkers. Only the process of Scotland becoming a normal country is likely to regain the loonies their sanity.
If the Union survives another decade - a big if - the SLDs will take over the leadership of Unionism for the remainder of the period.
If the Union is dissolved, I expect a powerful bounce for both Labour and Tories. The SNP are not going to have much fun after the initial post-independence GE. And I for one certainly won’t be hanging about to help them.
I do not want the UK to break-up, but that’s because I’m English and on the left! I envy the choice that the Scots have. I can see Labour staying Labour post-independence, but what would the Tories call themselves? Conservatives without the Unionist bit?
Good morning
I am far from convinced the Scots will vote for independence.
The idea that the Scots will break away from their main market and install a Berwick to Carlisle border is far from certain but there will be many thousands more issues to enable a divorce of our 400 year old relationship
52 Yes 48 No and Boris says that's not good enough for separation is my forecast!
Presumably when they rejoined the EU and handed their independence over to Brussels, they would be forced to install a hard border ...
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I like his description of the comments as ‘very historic’.
And the oft used formulation of the comments “ not representing my views”.
If these people were more honest, and said I wrote something bloody stupid, which I deeply regret, they might on occasion be forgiven for it.
Some would, but I fear that is not generally the case. When someone has said something stupid and apologised, genuinely (not all do it genuinely of course), they still face calls to resign. No one, except those on the same political side, accepts that people can change or that apology may be enough. So much for forgiveness and redemption.
With or without Brexit, Scotland will be independent shortly. The political divergence is now too huge and too sustained. Pro Union Scots should vote SLD on the remote chance that defeating Brexit keeps the Union on life support a bit longer.
Yes, one would have thought INDSCOT is coming quite soon now. Dragged out of the EU on Hard Brexit terms by a right wing Tory government headed by a vacuous Eton poshboy. Surely a slam dunk. If this does NOT lead to independence I would have to begin to suspect that the Scots are all mouth and no whatevers about the matter.
Totally agree, if not now they way they are being treated then never.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Magic grandpa and the disrespect our heroes agenda. A modern classic
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Didn't the Auld Alliance effectively end with John Knox and the Scottish Reformation?
Yes. Of course. That indeed was the whole point of Knox and his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (ahem, Mary Stuart).
Knox was a pawn of huge geopolitical forces far beyond the shores of Scotland.
I have a good deal of sympathy for Mary. Sixteenth century Scotland was a snakepit. I don't think anybody could have governed successfully.
I concur.
But sixteenth century (insert any European state you like) was a snakepit.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
All this doom and gloom! I'm actually hopeful for the future. Sure, the next few years will be utter shite, but every year will bring a new crop of young voters, all energised by the likes of Thunberg and XR. They will vote differently to us, and we will see a big change. Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems are all old hat, out of touch and singing the same old tunes. Their days are numbered. They either evolve or die, and I don't see much evidence of evolution in them at the minute.
TBH I'd say Labour is representing that generation, Labours problem ultimately is with those over 45 or more specifically over 60. I'm not saying this should happen but if you take away the over 60's Labour would get an easy majority. It is not the young coming through that is their problem but the older voters. It is a promising sign for Labours future but the boomer generation has a large say still.
That generation is not obsessed with Israel and the Middle East. Labour will start representing them when the leadership begins to understand that.
It becomes obsessed with Israel and the Middle East when Netanyahu bombs Gaza killing 2200 including 1400 women and children as he did a few years ago and on a regular basis. Oh and two Israelis were hurt
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
Doesn't the idea of having a mendacious amoral mini-me Trump as PM repulse you? It does me. For all the inadequacies of previous PMs we have never had one with the faults of Johnson. Whatever else the PM does he or she sets the tone and Johnson would do to us what Trump has done to the US and our reputation internationally will be trashed.
Not as much as the idea of Jeremy Corbyn being PM repulses me. And, we've had worse PM's than Johnson.
As far as I’m aware, no other Prime Minister has tried to suspend democracy to force through a policy that no one voted for that would have caused short term chaos and profound and long lasting effects. Boris Johnson is by some distance the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had.
We've had PM's who, variously, engaged in insider trading, flagellated young girls, raped maidservants, and started disastrous wars.
As far as I’m aware, none of them sought to dismantle the fabric of the country’s democracy, let alone without a personal mandate or a majority in Parliament.
Oh, I agree with Martin Coxall's/Sean Gabb's view of Johnson. But, he's not a dictator in the making.
The correct comparison is Napoleon III. Ludicrous, lightweight, populist - and someone who will casually dismantle the obstacles that democratic institutions create for him without a thought for the wider implications.
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Didn't the Auld Alliance effectively end with John Knox and the Scottish Reformation?
Yes. Of course. That indeed was the whole point of Knox and his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (ahem, Mary Stuart).
Knox was a pawn of huge geopolitical forces far beyond the shores of Scotland.
I have a good deal of sympathy for Mary. Sixteenth century Scotland was a snakepit. I don't think anybody could have governed successfully.
I concur.
But sixteenth century (insert any European state you like) was a snakepit.
It's a paradox that such a terrible century to have been alive in should also have seen the production of so much of the world's greatest art and literature.
Italy was the highpoint of European civilisation at the time, and the nastiest snakepit of them all.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Didn't the Auld Alliance effectively end with John Knox and the Scottish Reformation?
Yes. Of course. That indeed was the whole point of Knox and his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (ahem, Mary Stuart).
Knox was a pawn of huge geopolitical forces far beyond the shores of Scotland.
I have a good deal of sympathy for Mary. Sixteenth century Scotland was a snakepit. I don't think anybody could have governed successfully.
I concur.
But sixteenth century (insert any European state you like) was a snakepit.
It seems to me in most of history you almost had to be a right bastard in order to have the strength necessary to be a good rule*. It's quite unusual that in modern times you can get by just being a little bit of a bastard.
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I like his description of the comments as ‘very historic’.
And the oft used formulation of the comments “ not representing my views”.
If these people were more honest, and said I wrote something bloody stupid, which I deeply regret, they might on occasion be forgiven for it.
Some would, but I fear that is not generally the case. When someone has said something stupid and apologised, genuinely (not all do it genuinely of course), they still face calls to resign. No one, except those on the same political side, accepts that people can change or that apology may be enough. So much for forgiveness and redemption.
Calvert has been a PPC since being chosen for Morley & Outwood, so at least nine years, possibly more. He's not been plucked from obscurity.
I presume these posts pre-date that, otherwise he's clearly been quite moronic.
If that's the case, what's amazing is that these posts have stayed hidden for years. Has someone invented a wayback investigative tool? Or were these posts simply hidden in plain sight?
Understand the concerns, but we all (well, lots of us, anyway) think that if the suggested electoral boundaries are imposed for the 2025 election then it may well be difficult for anyone else to beat the Conservatives. And that as a result the country will be very, very different.
In principle it ought to be easy for a competent opposition to turf out the Tories under such circumstances. They are not loved to put it mildly, and it will be a miracle if we get to May 2024 without another recession.
If one Conservative win is followed by another in four-and-a-half years' time then it will most likely be because Labour has responded to defeat by doubling down on its Marxist Friends of Hamas manifesto. When you ask people either to put up with the smell of shit or the taste, don't be surprised if they keep on making the same choice.
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I like his description of the comments as ‘very historic’.
And the oft used formulation of the comments “ not representing my views”.
If these people were more honest, and said I wrote something bloody stupid, which I deeply regret, they might on occasion be forgiven for it.
Especially now with social media. Writing them down is very, very silly! When such remarks were just comments with friends after one too many drinks it didn't matter so much. I don't want one or two of my youthful remarks remembered by anyone else.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
True. And this has been well-noted by Scots, who are about to punish both the Labour and the Conservative & Unionist parties.
Neither will get anywhere near the post of FM until and unless they make a sharp turn:
- Labour would need to veer back towards genuine, caring social democracy, lead by pleasant, likeable personalities;
- the Conservative & Unionists have an even bigger task, uncoupling from the mendacious gang in London, dropping the loony flag-waving act, and rolling their sleeves up and coming up with some thought-through, popular policies on eg. housing, transport and infrastructure.
Both tasks look daunting, and I just cannot see the necessary strong, principled future leader in either party. This is fantastic news for the SLDs in the medium term. Once they ditch the hopeless Swinson and Rennie, they have a golden opportunity to give Unionism the decent, respectable leadership it so desperately needs.
Labour will only have a chance of bouncing back in Scotland after independence IMO.
Wouldn’t that be worse for them?
Post independence I assume the SNP morphs into a traditional left of centre party. Where’s the space for Labour at that point?
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Didn't the Auld Alliance effectively end with John Knox and the Scottish Reformation?
Yes. Of course. That indeed was the whole point of Knox and his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (ahem, Mary Stuart).
Knox was a pawn of huge geopolitical forces far beyond the shores of Scotland.
I have a good deal of sympathy for Mary. Sixteenth century Scotland was a snakepit. I don't think anybody could have governed successfully.
I concur.
But sixteenth century (insert any European state you like) was a snakepit.
It seems to me in most of history you almost had to be a right bastard in order to have the strength necessary to be a good rule*. It's quite unusual that in modern times you can get by just being a little bit of a bastard.
* yes there are no doubt many counter exampels.
It was a given that you had to be cruel in order to rule effectively. The important thing was to be cruel strategically - ie you disembowel people who betray you. You don't disembowel them, just because you want to seize their property or their wife.
The whole point is that it's better to be feared than to be loved, but you must avoid being hated.
Hearing lib dems.have pulled all resource out of two Harrow seats to focus on getting Dorothy elected in Watford. They also really think Sutton and Cheam.in serious play and Mole valley(Paul Beresfords)
Harrow LD score last time was around 3% in both Harrow seats, so that's sensible. Sutton and Cheam looks vaguely possible though a far stretch. On current national polling I'd think they need to focus on seats where they're not more than 15-20 points behind. Mole Valley is 42 points, and Watford is a Con-Lab marginal with LibDems (Dorothy??) 36 points adrift.
We only ever get "thumping majorities" because of our electoral system. No party ever has the votes for one.
It won't happen. The Lib Dems might have made a breakthrough into the top 2 as they did in May. But their voters will be remorselessly blackmailed into voting for Bozo or Corbyn in case they let the other one in.
It's all the big 2 have left, frightening people into voting for them because the only other alternative is worse. It's utterly depressing and far more so with the choice we have this time around. I'm beginning to think I'll sit it out as I did for the first time in 2017. Really, what is the point?
When (and perhaps more importantly why) did Prime Ministers start stepping down after one electoral defeat? The first PM from an ethnic minority was after all PM four times.
Was he? I make it twice: 1868 and 1874-80.
(There is also some dispute as to whether he was the first EM PM, btw.)
But wasn’t he defacto leader during Derby’s administrations?
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
Given the country’s demographics, if Labour do obtain power they will be able to tax the idle rich (aka wealthy pensioners) till the pips squeak without electoral consequence.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
Bless. Insults over arguments. You simply cannot claim any moral high ground when you support a pm who acted unlawfully.
When will he act unlawfully next? What will he do when things don’t go his way?
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
To be fair, nowhere in the small print of The Manual on Becoming Labour Leader and Potential Prime Minister does it say you have to sit through James Blunt at the Albert Hall.....
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
I was referring to Corbyn's disrespect to our military last night
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Must be terrible being you, going through life with such low expectations....
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
Yeah, Jonathan, be mature and responsible like Boris Clownshoe Johnson.
Absolute car crash for Kwarteng on Ridge, but it doesn’t matter. The Tories are untouchable thanks to Jeremy Corbyn and his mates.
Someone said this 1.2 trillion charge against labour is from the vote leave playbook
Make a claim guaranteed to cause outrage, then watch it discussed and argued about planting the original idea in peoples minds.
Makes sense as a theory. All I see is two sides promising oodles of cash for things we couldn't afford 2 years ago apparently, and one promises more than the other
Well. Look at it like this.
After a period of being strapped for cash, eating beans on toast and watching the pennies to pay the mortgage and the bills things get a bit better. A bit of a pay rise at work and a few expenses have been trimmed.
Just as a treat to reward yourself and your partner for years of careful expenditure you decide to eat out. Loosen the purse strings a bit. Once a month maybe.
You pick a restaurant. Reasonable. Perhaps order the house red wine, pick a rump steak. Perhaps pass on a starter to keep cost down and have a dessert instead. You still have a nice time. Much better than eating beans on toast on a Saturday night. And the bill Isn’t too expensive. You can do it again next month if you’re careful.
That’s the tories’ increase in spending.
Labour on the other hand are going into town, picking the most lavish restaurant you can find. Ordering pre dinner cocktails. All three courses, a couple of Bottles of vintage red. A cheese course, bottle of Port, a nice aged whiskey and then getting a black cab home. A lot more fun. But unsustainable. And stupid.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Must be terrible being you, going through life with such low expectations....
Low expectations but high standards. The reverse of your outlook.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
You don’t have to vote for him, regardless of whether he wins this time. Important in this election to register a vote against, it will be useful in the difficult years to come.
I genuinely dread the years to come. Labour’s enablement of Johnson with all the anger and chaos that will deliver is genuinely unforgiveable. In any other time, that video of him incoherently lying at the meeting in Northern Ireland would have been the end, even before you throw in the dodgy Russian money and the Arcuri case, but because of Corbyn Labour it doesn’t matter. Johnson can say and do as he wishes. He knows he cannot lose. Of course, the lies, the incompetence and the sleaze will all come back to bite over the next few years, but it will be too late and the country will suffer hugely as a result. Labour members’ selfish self-indulgence will reap a terrible price.
The future is indeed bleak, but we have come back from worse. Unfortunately it still has to get worse before it gets better. People have to relearn the consequences of populism, inflated promises and ideological bullshit. But then it will get better.
Yes we have come back from worse. We overcame the disastrous administration of Gordon Brown and its financial consequences.
I'd be more sympathetic of Lucas, and appreciative that she is not being incredibly rigid about things, if she did not constantly sit in judgement of others.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Whose freedom? Most of the world was under the colonial jackboot!
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
You don’t have to vote for him, regardless of whether he wins this time. Important in this election to register a vote against, it will be useful in the difficult years to come.
e.
The future is indeed bleak, but we have come back from worse. Unfortunately it still has to get worse before it gets better. People have to relearn the consequences of populism, inflated promises and ideological bullshit. But then it will get better.
Yes we have come back from worse. We overcame the disastrous administration of Gordon Brown and its financial consequences.
If you generously factor down the Tory estimate of Labour's spending plan, that still gets you to £120bn extra spending a year, over 5 years.
It will sure be interesting to see Labour's "fully costed" tax and borrowing to deliver that much money.
If you think what one party says about another is serious data for earnest consideration, it is most likely that when it comes to elections you haven't been paying attention.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
One thing only I know, and that is that you know nothing.
Brooding a little further on "standards", and with Trump and Johnson at the forefront of my mind, I wonder if it's the case that people who do not have many themselves actively like to see politicians of this ilk succeed. Why? Well, because it validates their own (lack of) standards if they see someone similarly devoid in a big role model position. If this is true, or even partly true, it is not great news because it sets up a negative feedback loop. The more people feel like this, the more likely it is that "entertaining" charlatans achieve high office, and the more that such individuals DO win and prosper, the more in turn and as a consequence will more and more people feel it's totally OK and indeed a good thing that this happens. That's a bad thought and I wish I hadn't had it.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Whose freedom? Most of the world was under the colonial jackboot!
That is true. Though most of that most of the world under the colonial jackboot had previously been ruled by a local despot, so not much will have changed at the bottom of the pyramid.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
One thing only I know, and that is that you know nothing.
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I’d be fine I think. Many years ago I was told “never write down anything you wouldn’t want to hear read out in open court”, and I have followed that advice ever since.
I'd be more sympathetic of Lucas, and appreciative that she is not being incredibly rigid about things, if she did not constantly sit in judgement of others.
Doesn't the idea of having a mendacious amoral mini-me Trump as PM repulse you? It does me. For all the inadequacies of previous PMs we have never had one with the faults of Johnson. Whatever else the PM does he or she sets the tone and Johnson would do to us what Trump has done to the US and our reputation internationally will be trashed.
Not as much as the idea of Jeremy Corbyn being PM repulses me. And, we've had worse PM's than Johnson.
As far as I’m aware, no other Prime Minister has tried to suspend democracy to force through a policy that no one voted for that would have caused short term chaos and profound and long lasting effects. Boris Johnson is by some distance the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had.
We've had PM's who, variously, engaged in insider trading, flagellated young girls, raped maidservants, and started disastrous wars.
As far as I’m aware, none of them sought to dismantle the fabric of the country’s democracy, let alone without a personal mandate or a majority in Parliament.
If you really consider sending parliament on its holibobs for an extra four days to be an act of greater magnitude than the Iraq war, I really don't know what to say.
That is not what was done. So you are, as usual, idiotically wrong.
You can couch the prorogation in whatever florid terms you like. The comparison with Iraq still borders on the insane. 500,000 dead say hi.
Prorogation is literally suspending the country’s democracy. Literally literally. Not florid, not a metaphor, literally. Normally it is used as a technical mechanism. On this occasion it was used in a failed attempt to transform the country’s politics by undemocratic means.
Ultimately, you either have some form of respect for the constitution or you do not. No one advocating a vote for the Conservatives in this election has any respect for the constitution.
Oh, get over yourself. That's as vacuous as saying noone advocating a vote for the Lib Dems has any respect for democracy, or noone advoxating a vote for Labour has any respect for human decency. Moreover, constitutional-dicking-about this year has hardly been the preserve of the Conservatives. People vote, amd asvocate votes, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm voting Conservative because the alternative to a Conservative majority is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. And for fans of liberal constitutional democracy, that looks like the worst possible outcome.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Whose freedom? Most of the world was under the colonial jackboot!
That is true. Though most of that most of the world under the colonial jackboot had previously been ruled by a local despot, so not much will have changed at the bottom of the pyramid.
That is an... unusual... reading of colonial history. If you think empire was just about changing the people at the top of some local pyramid, then I recommend you start reading a little more about it today.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
One thing only I know, and that is that you know nothing.
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I’d be fine I think. Many years ago I was told “never write down anything you wouldn’t want to hear read out in open court”, and I have followed that advice ever since.
So you are saying you have deliberately tampered with documentary evidence for legal reasons? And over a prolonged period of time?
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
One thing only I know, and that is that you know nothing.
Brooding a little further on "standards", and with Trump and Johnson at the forefront of my mind, I wonder if it's the case that people who do not have many themselves actively like to see politicians of this ilk succeed. Why? Well, because it validates their own (lack of) standards if they see someone similarly devoid in a big role model position. If this is true, or even partly true, it is not great news because it sets up a negative feedback loop. The more people feel like this, the more likely it is that "entertaining" charlatans achieve high office, and the more that such individuals DO win and prosper, the more in turn and as a consequence will more and more people feel it's totally OK and indeed a good thing that this happens. That's a bad thought and I wish I hadn't had it.
I heard a vox pop from the north recently and Boris received surprising endorsements from normal folk who liked him 'cocking a snook' at establishment, one of the lads and someone I would have a drink with were also common themes
People like rebels and Boris has done a pretty good impression of taking on the elite and if he wins, it will be because this has cut through
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
But we have to update our understanding of what poverty entails as time passes and society develops. If we didn't do that, someone in straitened circumstances in the 70s would have been deemed to have never had it so good compared to, say, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Likewise, today, a mobile telephonic device with internet access - "smartphone" - is quite rightly considered an essential tool of modern life. If you are 15 and cannot afford one, it is likely to lead to exclusion and isolation. This is child poverty - where the poverty is poverty not "poverty". The fact that smartphones did not exist in 1979 does not make them merely a "nice to have" in 2019.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
You don’t have to vote for him, regardless of whether he wins this time. Important in this election to register a vote against, it will be useful in the difficult years to come.
e.
The future is indeed bleak, but we have come back from worse. Unfortunately it still has to get worse before it gets better. People have to relearn the consequences of populism, inflated promises and ideological bullshit. But then it will get better.
Yes we have come back from worse. We overcame the disastrous administration of Gordon Brown and its financial consequences.
If you generously factor down the Tory estimate of Labour's spending plan, that still gets you to £120bn extra spending a year, over 5 years.
It will sure be interesting to see Labour's "fully costed" tax and borrowing to deliver that much money.
If you think what one party says about another is serious data for earnest consideration, it is most likely that when it comes to elections you haven't been paying attention.
Hence looking at it discounted by half. Labour plans remain mind boggling and they've never run anything before either.
Oh, get over yourself. That's as vacuous as saying noone advocating a vote for the Lib Dems has any respect for democracy, or noone advoxating a vote for Labour has any respect for human decency. Moreover, constitutional-dicking-about this year has hardly been the preserve of the Conservatives. People vote, amd asvocate votes, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm voting Conservative because the alternative to a Conservative majority is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. And for fans of liberal constitutional democracy, that looks like the worst possible outcome.
It's hardly vacuous to take into account the things done by the sitting PM when you weigh up your vote. Meeks is right: if you really care about the constitution of this country, you wouldn't vote for the man who suspended parliament unlawfully. At least a third of this country is likely to vote for parties other than Conservative and Labour. Why not join them if you truly have the standards you claim to have? This country will get nowhere if people like you who know right from wrong continue to vote for what you regard as the slightly less soiled of the big 2.
I'd be more sympathetic of Lucas, and appreciative that she is not being incredibly rigid about things, if she did not constantly sit in judgement of others.
After a period of being strapped for cash, eating beans on toast and watching the pennies to pay the mortgage and the bills things get a bit better. A bit of a pay rise at work and a few expenses have been trimmed.
Just as a treat to reward yourself and your partner for years of careful expenditure you decide to eat out. Loosen the purse strings a bit. Once a month maybe.
You pick a restaurant. Reasonable. Perhaps order the house red wine, pick a rump steak. Perhaps pass on a starter to keep cost down and have a dessert instead. You still have a nice time. Much better than eating beans on toast on a Saturday night. And the bill Isn’t too expensive. You can do it again next month if you’re careful.
That’s the tories’ increase in spending.
Labour on the other hand are going into town, picking the most lavish restaurant you can find. Ordering pre dinner cocktails. All three courses, a couple of Bottles of vintage red. A cheese course, bottle of Port, a nice aged whiskey and then getting a black cab home. A lot more fun. But unsustainable. And stupid.
I'd be more sympathetic of Lucas, and appreciative that she is not being incredibly rigid about things, if she did not constantly sit in judgement of others.
It is a bit unfortunate that whilst Jeremy comes across like a nice old duffer, but then spouts appalling doctrinaire policies, Lucas often talks commonsense whilst coming across with the personality of an extra from 'Death of Stalin'.
After a period of being strapped for cash, eating beans on toast and watching the pennies to pay the mortgage and the bills things get a bit better. A bit of a pay rise at work and a few expenses have been trimmed.
Just as a treat to reward yourself and your partner for years of careful expenditure you decide to eat out. Loosen the purse strings a bit. Once a month maybe.
You pick a restaurant. Reasonable. Perhaps order the house red wine, pick a rump steak. Perhaps pass on a starter to keep cost down and have a dessert instead. You still have a nice time. Much better than eating beans on toast on a Saturday night. And the bill Isn’t too expensive. You can do it again next month if you’re careful.
That’s the tories’ increase in spending.
Labour on the other hand are going into town, picking the most lavish restaurant you can find. Ordering pre dinner cocktails. All three courses, a couple of Bottles of vintage red. A cheese course, bottle of Port, a nice aged whiskey and then getting a black cab home. A lot more fun. But unsustainable. And stupid.
Labour plan to buy the restaurant.
Presumably at a price they set, rather than the market rate...
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
I don't buy this "Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky". There might be people who earn a basic income who get sky, but if you are struggling to pay for food for the kids or pay the rent, you don't buy sky tv. Even if you have a subscription and then get laid off, the after a couple of months of not paying it gets cut off.
As for mobiles. If you are trying to find a way to get soe kind of work for 8 hours tomorrow, you have to be contactable by mobile phone. And a non-smartphone on pay as you go has not been expensive for a long time. So having no phone makes you poorer.
That depends on what you mean by having Sky.
My Now TV entertainment pass currently costs £1.60 per month which gives access to multiple Sky channels.
For that matter lots of people use another subscriber's log-in to get free access to Sky, BT Sport and Netflix.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Hearing lib dems.have pulled all resource out of two Harrow seats to focus on getting Dorothy elected in Watford. They also really think Sutton and Cheam.in serious play and Mole valley(Paul Beresfords)
Harrow LD score last time was around 3% in both Harrow seats, so that's sensible. Sutton and Cheam looks vaguely possible though a far stretch. On current national polling I'd think they need to focus on seats where they're not more than 15-20 points behind. Mole Valley is 42 points, and Watford is a Con-Lab marginal with LibDems (Dorothy??) 36 points adrift.
I have Sutton and Cheam as a LibDem gain but Watford looks a bit of a stretch.
I am a bit surprised at the Belfast South comments. This looks a sure lose for the DUP, with a probable SDLP win (although the Alliance could challenge if the electorate are really tiring of the same old games). Given the stand down of Sinn Fein in this seat that gives over 7000 votes to share between the SDLP and Alliance.
I was referring to Corbyn's disrespect to our military last night
Boris behaviour is another subject
Disrespect to "our" military? Get some perspective. He didn't shit in a QUARNNS' hat. He just chose not to attend a tawdry, and now apparently mandatory, festival of nationalism that had more than a whiff of the caudillo about it.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus. Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect. You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
But we have to update our understanding of what poverty entails as time passes and society develops. If we didn't do that, someone in straitened circumstances in the 70s would have been deemed to have never had it so good compared to, say, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Likewise, today, a mobile telephonic device with internet access - "smartphone" - is quite rightly considered an essential tool of modern life. If you are 15 and cannot afford one, it is likely to lead to exclusion and isolation. This is child poverty - where the poverty is poverty not "poverty". The fact that smartphones did not exist in 1979 does not make them merely a "nice to have" in 2019.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
All that shows is that you are (probably) over 50.
You can get a smartphone for under £100. Makes more economic sense than buying a phone and a laptop.
After a period of being strapped for cash, eating beans on toast and watching the pennies to pay the mortgage and the bills things get a bit better. A bit of a pay rise at work and a few expenses have been trimmed.
Just as a treat to reward yourself and your partner for years of careful expenditure you decide to eat out. Loosen the purse strings a bit. Once a month maybe.
You pick a restaurant. Reasonable. Perhaps order the house red wine, pick a rump steak. Perhaps pass on a starter to keep cost down and have a dessert instead. You still have a nice time. Much better than eating beans on toast on a Saturday night. And the bill Isn’t too expensive. You can do it again next month if you’re careful.
That’s the tories’ increase in spending.
Labour on the other hand are going into town, picking the most lavish restaurant you can find. Ordering pre dinner cocktails. All three courses, a couple of Bottles of vintage red. A cheese course, bottle of Port, a nice aged whiskey and then getting a black cab home. A lot more fun. But unsustainable. And stupid.
Labour plan to buy the restaurant.
That would make a great episode of Kitchen Nightmares.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
What is the point though?
That if you are a Green politician you should not fly?
Or if you do fly you should not be a Green politician?
Oh, get over yourself. That's as vacuous as saying noone advocating a vote for the Lib Dems has any respect for democracy, or noone advoxating a vote for Labour has any respect for human decency. Moreover, constitutional-dicking-about this year has hardly been the preserve of the Conservatives. People vote, amd asvocate votes, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm voting Conservative because the alternative to a Conservative majority is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. And for fans of liberal constitutional democracy, that looks like the worst possible outcome.
It's hardly vacuous to take into account the things done by the sitting PM when you weigh up your vote. Meeks is right: if you really care about the constitution of this country, you wouldn't vote for the man who suspended parliament unlawfully. At least a third of this country is likely to vote for parties other than Conservative and Labour. Why not join them if you truly have the standards you claim to have? This country will get nowhere if people like you who know right from wrong continue to vote for what you regard as the slightly less soiled of the big 2.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus. Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect. You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
I guess everyone draws the line differently. I have no issue with Lucas flying to see her son. I thought Emma Thompson flying back specifically to protest about climate change bonkers and hypocritical.
I have no issue with politicians having taken drugs. I dislike politicians who have regularly taken drugs but then vote for stiffening sentences for recreational drug users.
I think these are issues where everyone has a different threshold, rather than being right or wrong.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
One thing only I know, and that is that you know nothing.
... John Snow.
I'm not a fan of channel 4 news but that is a bit harsh.....
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
Hearing lib dems.have pulled all resource out of two Harrow seats to focus on getting Dorothy elected in Watford. They also really think Sutton and Cheam.in serious play and Mole valley(Paul Beresfords)
Harrow LD score last time was around 3% in both Harrow seats, so that's sensible. Sutton and Cheam looks vaguely possible though a far stretch. On current national polling I'd think they need to focus on seats where they're not more than 15-20 points behind. Mole Valley is 42 points, and Watford is a Con-Lab marginal with LibDems (Dorothy??) 36 points adrift.
Do not discount Mole Valley. I live in Guildford and the Mole Valley boundary is about 2 miles from my home. The Conservatives in Mole Valley have had a meltdown, driven by a local plan which is so unpopular you could advocate bulldozing Dorking for a new airport and it would attract more support. Add in an MP known as Mr Invisible (although I am not sure if he is restanding) and the loss of the council in May and the past is not a good guide to the future. The Surrey heartland is possibly the area with the biggest probable Con to LD swing in the UK (watch Guildford).
I do not think the LDs will win Mole Valley, but any majority will be down into 4 figures (and possibly under 5000).
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
What is the point though?
That if you are a Green politician you should not fly?
Or if you do fly you should not be a Green politician?
Well, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask how often Lucas is flying? And whether those flights are really necessary?
Lucas is one of the most judgemental figures in modern politics, so I am not impressed with her response ("let's not sit in judgment on each other")
Clearly, it is hypocritical when touring rock stars take a heavily Green stance. Or Lewis Hamilton.
Their entire lifestyle (which after all is nothing very vital) is based around taking lots of international flights for themselves and their entourage.
Basically, you can't advocate vegetarianism if you are a prominent cannibal.
I was referring to Corbyn's disrespect to our military last night
Boris behaviour is another subject
Disrespect to "our" military? Get some perspective. He didn't shit in a QUARNNS' hat. He just chose not to attend a tawdry, and now apparently mandatory, festival of nationalism that had more than a whiff of the caudillo about it.
As you note, it is now mandatory. For better or for worse.
Come on, come over to the other side. We'll get a free rail pass. That's got to be worth it.
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
But we have to update our understanding of what poverty entails as time passes and society develops. If we didn't do that, someone in straitened circumstances in the 70s would have been deemed to have never had it so good compared to, say, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Likewise, today, a mobile telephonic device with internet access - "smartphone" - is quite rightly considered an essential tool of modern life. If you are 15 and cannot afford one, it is likely to lead to exclusion and isolation. This is child poverty - where the poverty is poverty not "poverty". The fact that smartphones did not exist in 1979 does not make them merely a "nice to have" in 2019.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
All that shows is that you are (probably) over 50.
You can get a smartphone for under £100. Makes more economic sense than buying a phone and a laptop.
Comments
But sixteenth century (insert any European state you like) was a snakepit.
It will sure be interesting to see Labour's "fully costed" tax and borrowing to deliver that much money.
I went for the Three Choirs one - currently 25% off at Waitrose and Partners, who are the official supplier.
(Plus £3.19 Top Cashback, which will cover the chip supper they say it is good with :-)
https://twitter.com/RAF_IFA/status/1193454541229965312
Italy was the highpoint of European civilisation at the time, and the nastiest snakepit of them all.
* yes there are no doubt many counter exampels.
I presume these posts pre-date that, otherwise he's clearly been quite moronic.
If that's the case, what's amazing is that these posts have stayed hidden for years. Has someone invented a wayback investigative tool? Or were these posts simply hidden in plain sight?
If one Conservative win is followed by another in four-and-a-half years' time then it will most likely be because Labour has responded to defeat by doubling down on its Marxist Friends of Hamas manifesto. When you ask people either to put up with the smell of shit or the taste, don't be surprised if they keep on making the same choice.
I don't want one or two of my youthful remarks remembered by anyone else.
Post independence I assume the SNP morphs into a traditional left of centre party. Where’s the space for Labour at that point?
The whole point is that it's better to be feared than to be loved, but you must avoid being hated.
And, of course, you have to be competent in war.
It's all the big 2 have left, frightening people into voting for them because the only other alternative is worse. It's utterly depressing and far more so with the choice we have this time around. I'm beginning to think I'll sit it out as I did for the first time in 2017. Really, what is the point?
When will he act unlawfully next? What will he do when things don’t go his way?
Boris behaviour is another subject
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
Moreover, constitutional-dicking-about this year has hardly been the preserve of the Conservatives.
People vote, amd asvocate votes, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm voting Conservative because the alternative to a Conservative majority is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. And for fans of liberal constitutional democracy, that looks like the worst possible outcome.
My case rests m'lud.
People like rebels and Boris has done a pretty good impression of taking on the elite and if he wins, it will be because this has cut through
He may turn out to be a disaster but who knows.
Good to read your musings with a smile
At least a third of this country is likely to vote for parties other than Conservative and Labour. Why not join them if you truly have the standards you claim to have? This country will get nowhere if people like you who know right from wrong continue to vote for what you regard as the slightly less soiled of the big 2.
My Now TV entertainment pass currently costs £1.60 per month which gives access to multiple Sky channels.
For that matter lots of people use another subscriber's log-in to get free access to Sky, BT Sport and Netflix.
Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect.
You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
You can get a smartphone for under £100. Makes more economic sense than buying a phone and a laptop.
As long as you weren't forced to be a customer.
That if you are a Green politician you should not fly?
Or if you do fly you should not be a Green politician?
I have no issue with politicians having taken drugs. I dislike politicians who have regularly taken drugs but then vote for stiffening sentences for recreational drug users.
I think these are issues where everyone has a different threshold, rather than being right or wrong.
Unlike Michael, Boris did get his foot in the door of No.10.
I do not think the LDs will win Mole Valley, but any majority will be down into 4 figures (and possibly under 5000).
Lucas is one of the most judgemental figures in modern politics, so I am not impressed with her response ("let's not sit in judgment on each other")
Clearly, it is hypocritical when touring rock stars take a heavily Green stance. Or Lewis Hamilton.
Their entire lifestyle (which after all is nothing very vital) is based around taking lots of international flights for themselves and their entourage.
Basically, you can't advocate vegetarianism if you are a prominent cannibal.
Come on, come over to the other side. We'll get a free rail pass. That's got to be worth it.