Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
EU membership, which is gradual incremental change in the opposite direction to our political system and way of life, is now conservativism to you?
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
EU membership, which is gradual incremental change in the opposite direction to our political system and way of life, is now conservativism to you?
The rot runs deep.
We were always sovereign, sunshine. Take it from someone who knows.
You are brilliant. Please stay around here and keep posting.
You will bring @RochdalePioneers some relief as he battles the entity that is @TheJezziah. He will giggle and rightly so at your declarations and declamations.
Perhaps between you and @HYUFD you could draw up the rules of conservative party membership. Just some of the basics will be fine so we can begin to weed out the imposters.
The thing about fanatics dividing the true believers up into ever smaller factions is that eventually they always tend to a size of 1, at which point they are at war with literally everyone else.
Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
In my business life, I have found one policy has been enormously successful: iteration.
You have a general idea of where you want to get to, and you keep iterating, making small improvements that get you going to where you want.
Every business I've been involved with that has failed has failed because there was a big plan, and there was going to be a huge amount of work, and this enormous transformation. And everyone loses their jobs because there's no feedback loop in place. You need to be guided, constantly, by discovering if what you're doing is working.
And that's why conservatism - mostly - worked. It was little changes. It was government by iterative change. Even the most extraordinary developments in Britain, like the Glorious Revolution or the Act of Union, were barely more than incremental, especially when compared to our continental neighbours.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
EU membership, which is gradual incremental change in the opposite direction to our political system and way of life, is now conservativism to you?
The rot runs deep.
Since that is not what I said it’s hard to know what your point is.
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
There ought to be some feelings of schadenfraude in me here, but there isn't. Since 2015, it has all been desperately sad. No idea where this will end, but the 2 party system looks utterly broken. Neither of them are a party any more, but openly at each others' throats. We failed to deal with the GFC with anything other than partisan finger pointing.
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
Except it isn't. EU membership pools sovereignty, but doesn't give it up. Withdrawing in the absence of some new context that renders the EU irrelevant just means we have to renegotiate an inferior version of what we've already got.
...But we pledged our support for the Tories a few years ago and that pledge...still binds us...
I think at this point in the movie there's a roll of thunder, everybody pauses, then you clap your hands together and say "But let's not dwell on old times, yes? The maids will take you to your rooms. There's clean linen and hot water, but don't forget to lock your door and don't go out after midnight. No matter what you may hear..."
If a person voted to Remain then does not commit to Leave Deal or No Deal then clearly they are trying to stop Brexit
There are people whose preference order is Deal > Remain > No Deal, and indeed those whose order is No Deal > Remain > Deal (the ones saying that May's Deal was worse than Remain).
Now, I suppose some people may claim to be in either one of those groups disingenuously, really wanting to advance the cause of Remain. But are you saying that nobody is genuinely in one of those groups?
The vast majority of Tories prefer Leave Deal or No Deal to Remain.
If you prefer Remain then clearly you are not really suited to the current Tory Party
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
Wait and see how much control you will be taking back in reality.
Ripping up overnight the legal, regulatory and commercial basis on which the country has been run for the last 46 years is not a conservative act.
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
Except it isn't. EU membership pools sovereignty, but doesn't give it up. Withdrawing in the absence of some new context that renders the EU irrelevant just means we have to renegotiate an inferior version of what we've already got.
The two are incompatible, aren't they? Either you can decide things yourself, or you can't.
The party really will be finished if it does not deliver Brexit, the Brexit Party will overtake it as the main party of the right.
If it delivers Brexit, Deal or No Deal, it may lose some Remain voters to the LDs but it will still be the main party of the right.
Labour though if Corbynism retains control and it still refuses to commit to EUref2 or even full single market membership could well be overtaken as the main party of the centre left by the LDs
I agree that the party will be finished if it doesn't deliver Brexit. That's because it has signed up to a suicide pact.
Your big mistake is failing to understand that it will also be finished - in fact, in an even worse state - if it does deliver Brexit by the unthinkable route of crashing us out in chaos. It is utter madness, which no sentient government or party should even begin to contemplate. The polling support for crashing out in chaos, which you are fond of quoting, and which is based entirely on a naïve frustration with the fact that Labour and the ERG have conspired to sabotage Brexit, will disintegrate in weeks when it hits the reality of crashing out.
...even as an economic disaster, the most that will happen is the Tories fall back to 25 to 30%...
Listen to yourself.
You are seeking election and have a complete disregard for the public good. You have gone mad.
Sorry but you are simply unfit for office.
That depends on how you define the public good and refusing to implement the Leave vote does not seem to me a key definition of the public good
Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
In my business life, I have found one policy has been enormously successful: iteration.
You have a general idea of where you want to get to, and you keep iterating, making small improvements that get you going to where you want.
Every business I've been involved with that has failed has failed because there was a big plan, and there was going to be a huge amount of work, and this enormous transformation. And everyone loses their jobs because there's no feedback loop in place. You need to be guided, constantly, by discovering if what you're doing is working.
And that's why conservatism - mostly - worked. It was little changes. It was government by iterative change. Even the most extraordinary developments in Britain, like the Glorious Revolution or the Act of Union, were barely more than incremental, especially when compared to our continental neighbours.
True. The Treaty of Union was the culmination of well over a century of work by the two privy councils.
Similarly, the dissolution of the Union is an iterative process that can be traced back to societal and attitude changes and developments with roots in the Victorian era.
Independence is a process, not a destination. Brexiteers haven’t understood that, yet.
...But we pledged our support for the Tories a few years ago and that pledge...still binds us...
I think at this point in the movie there's a roll of thunder, everybody pauses, then you clap your hands together and say "But let's not dwell on old times, yes? The maids will take you to your rooms. There's clean linen and hot water, but don't forget to lock your door and don't go out after midnight. No matter what you may hear..."
If a person voted to Remain then does not commit to Leave Deal or No Deal then clearly they are trying to stop Brexit
There are people whose preference order is Deal > Remain > No Deal, and indeed those whose order is No Deal > Remain > Deal (the ones saying that May's Deal was worse than Remain).
Now, I suppose some people may claim to be in either one of those groups disingenuously, really wanting to advance the cause of Remain. But are you saying that nobody is genuinely in one of those groups?
The vast majority of Tories prefer Leave Deal or No Deal to Remain.
If you prefer Remain then clearly you are not really suited to the current Tory Party
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
Brexit is a restoration of national sovereignty, nothing unconservative about that
Except it isn't. EU membership pools sovereignty, but doesn't give it up. Withdrawing in the absence of some new context that renders the EU irrelevant just means we have to renegotiate an inferior version of what we've already got.
No, it means we can have a FTA with the EU or at worst trade on WTO terms as most sovereign nations do with their neighbours and trading partners
If a person voted to Remain then does not commit to Leave Deal or No Deal then clearly they are trying to stop Brexit
There are people whose preference order is Deal > Remain > No Deal, and indeed those whose order is No Deal > Remain > Deal (the ones saying that May's Deal was worse than Remain).
Now, I suppose some people may claim to be in either one of those groups disingenuously, really wanting to advance the cause of Remain. But are you saying that nobody is genuinely in one of those groups?
The vast majority of Tories prefer Leave Deal or No Deal to Remain.
If you prefer Remain then clearly you are not really suited to the current Tory Party
at worst trade on WTO terms as most sovereign nations do with their neighbours and trading partners
I'm not really sure that statement holds up. The most common FTA, by far, is between neighbours. Whether Mercosur, EEA, NAFTA, CARICOM, or ASEAN, one thing dominates: distance.
at worst trade on WTO terms as most sovereign nations do with their neighbours and trading partners
I'm not really sure that statement holds up. The most common FTA, by far, is between neighbours. Whether Mercosur, EEA, NAFTA, CARICOM, or ASEAN, one thing dominates: distance.
As I said before that 'it means we can have a FTA with the EU or at worst trade on WTO terms as most sovereign nations do with their neighbours and trading partners'
The party is finished either way, at least until it comes back to its senses and allows some future David Cameron to drag it back into the real world, which is not going to happen anytime soon. However, of the two catastrophes facing it, crashing out with no deal is the worse; it will be blamed for a generation.
This here is exactly the problem with the party, that people like yourself are in it when you belong in the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron was a Liberal Democrat who was in the Conservative Party because of his background, not because of his beliefs.
Once you've all defected to the Liberal Democrats - which must be soon going by these figures - maybe the party will get back on track to believing in something and doing conservative things.
Err, I've supported the Conservatives since 1964 when I was 9 years old and got hold of the manifestos of the then three main parties, deciding that the Conservative one made most sense. I've voted Conservative in every election (apart from one local election) since I reached voting age. I even voted Conservative in the recent Euro elections, which seems to be more than most Conservative Party members can claim. Margaret Thatcher is my political heroine. So I really don't think I need to take any lessons from a Kipper as to what a 'true Conservative' is.
I certainly won't join the LibDems, but faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the Conservative Party seems determined to become indistinguishable from UKIP.
Remembering all the polite disputes we've had over the years when you seemed utterly Conservative no matter what, this exchange makes quite remarkable reading. But you really can say that it's not that you've moved away from the party but that it's moved away from you.
So hopefully no more jibes then about how biased ConHome surveys are, given Hunt did better with ConHome this morning than he does with YouGov this evening
That isn't the main reason people object to way you report the surveys and you are not stupid enough not to know that.
Whether I call it a survey or a poll it does not really matter, that is just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, as it closely mirrors YouGov there is little reason to doubt its accuracy
So you do know why many people objected (and it is fine that you disagree that the objection is valid) and yet acted as though it was solely about something else.
And given you operate your own definitions of what constitutions a true Tory (it does not include people who vote Tory regularly or are longstanding members and insist they are Tories, if they take the wrong view) and of being a remainer (it does not include those who respevt democracy now despite voting remain like yourself, unless that person is a politician who voted remain even if they have voted multiple times to leave) I am curious that you would get huffy about people being unreasonably pedantic in their interpretation of the use of survey/poll.
One cannot exercise extreme pedantry and then object to being turned against them, I thought that was a golden rule of PB.
Pleasant night to all.
If a person voted to Remain then does not commit to Leave Deal or No Deal then clearly they are trying to stop Brexit
Oh dear you are now as nutty as the nuttiest kipper loon there ever was. Shame on you.
That's business in a nutshell. They tried to gouge the Govt. on price, because it would be too embarassing to have blue passports made by....
They were told where to get off.
Taken back control and awarded the contract to the EU
Meh, more money for the government to spend on the NHS. What's not to like?
170 fewer tax / NI receipts. 170 more JSA claims.
That's a dangerous route to go down. If you start including NI/Income tax reciepts in the cost of a project, then you are essentially subsidising domestic producers.
Why charge an economic rate, when you know you'll be evaluated on a rate that includes NI/Income tax benefits to the government?
I'm a bit sceptical about the line that LibDems are one happy family. Isn't that because a load of them left in disgust because Clegg had the temerity to carry out the stated party policy of working with either of the two main parties?
Or because Nick Clegg tore up the manifesto and main campaign themes?
Says he's a true Conservative then in the next breath says he'll vote for the left-wing Liberal Democrats who support a federal Europe thus proving my point entirely.
Maybe you once were a conservative, but clearly no longer.
It doesn't prove your point at all. I don't support the LibDem policy on Brexit, or indeed on lots of other things. But, as I said, faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the alternatives are either Corbyn's Labour, or a party which has taken over the name of the Conservative Party but which is no longer recognisable as the pragmatic, serious, business-friendly, non-ideological, financially sound party of good government which is the essence of Conservatism.
Non-ideological is just another way of saying you don't believe in anything and will follow the centre-left on everything but with lower taxes to protect all those second homes in London. Aka a description of David Cameron.
For everyone else outside of that bracket, we actually want conservative politics and not just social liberal guff and low tax bands.
Brexit is a profoundly unconservative policy. If it is anything it is a revolutionary act, certainly in the way in which it is proposed, which will likely cause harm to the country you claim to love. Gradual incremental change is the essence of Conservatism. Whatever you are, you are not a Conservative.
That might be a valid argument if Remaining is standing still and Leaving is change. But Remaining is change also - towards ever closer union. There was no status quo on the ballot in 2016 - to Remain would have meant remaining a part of ever closer union.
As for 'harm', didn't Thatcher do harm? You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs, my mum always used to say.
That's business in a nutshell. They tried to gouge the Govt. on price, because it would be too embarassing to have blue passports made by....
They were told where to get off.
Taken back control and awarded the contract to the EU
Meh, more money for the government to spend on the NHS. What's not to like?
170 fewer tax / NI receipts. 170 more JSA claims.
That's a dangerous route to go down. If you start including NI/Income tax reciepts in the cost of a project, then you are essentially subsidising domestic producers.
Why charge an economic rate, when you know you'll be evaluated on a rate that includes NI/Income tax benefits to the government?
It is the route taken by other countries and it does not seem unreasonable that the government or any buyer should take into account all the costs, not just the sticker number. Surely car buyers look at fuel consumption and insurance group as well as the showroom cost, and holiday makers consider the cost of fares and meals alongside the hotel bill.
That said, I've no idea what are the ins and outs of this particular deal.
If a person voted to Remain then does not commit to Leave Deal or No Deal then clearly they are trying to stop Brexit
There are people whose preference order is Deal > Remain > No Deal, and indeed those whose order is No Deal > Remain > Deal (the ones saying that May's Deal was worse than Remain).
Now, I suppose some people may claim to be in either one of those groups disingenuously, really wanting to advance the cause of Remain. But are you saying that nobody is genuinely in one of those groups?
The vast majority of Tories prefer Leave Deal or No Deal to Remain.
If you prefer Remain then clearly you are not really suited to the current Tory Party
...But we pledged our support for the Tories a few years ago and that pledge...still binds us...
I think at this point in the movie there's a roll of thunder, everybody pauses, then you clap your hands together and say "But let's not dwell on old times, yes? The maids will take you to your rooms. There's clean linen and hot water, but don't forget to lock your door and don't go out after midnight. No matter what you may hear..."
Nobody hurt. Power still on. And Internet still working. Phew.
Let's hope to god that these two recent quakes are not the precursors to the next 1906 event. That was a 7.9 with a MMI at the top end of the scale of XI :
"Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly."
Nobody hurt. Power still on. And Internet still working. Phew.
Let's hope to god that these two recent quakes are not the precursors to the next 1906 event. That was a 7.9 with a MMI at the top end of the scale of XI :
"Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly."
These are rolling quakes not shakers. My wife is very blasé about it.
BBC 5Live advising that a "Today" programme investigation on R4 this morning will report that Conservative party members are receiving two ballots for the PM beauty show contest.
Who's running this sh*t show? .... UKIP entryists, Tower Hamlets Labour party or the North Korean Elections Unit?
Nobody hurt. Power still on. And Internet still working. Phew.
Let's hope to god that these two recent quakes are not the precursors to the next 1906 event. That was a 7.9 with a MMI at the top end of the scale of XI :
"Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly."
These are rolling quakes not shakers. My wife is very blasé about it.
Many moons ago I was chatting with a scientist "quack nut" (his words) who described that broad view as "Bill Haley Syndrome" - Shake Rattle and Roll - the idea that rollers wouldn't be believed to be upcoming major quakes until the death rattle struck the victims !!
I'm a bit sceptical about the line that LibDems are one happy family. Isn't that because a load of them left in disgust because Clegg had the temerity to carry out the stated party policy of working with either of the two main parties?
Or because Nick Clegg tore up the manifesto and main campaign themes?
And because the LD ministers started activels supporting Conservative Party policies.
BBC 5Live advising that a "Today" programme investigation on R4 this morning will report that Conservative party members are receiving two ballots for the PM beauty show contest.
Who's running this sh*t show? .... UKIP entryists, Tower Hamlets Labour party or the North Korean Elections Unit?
To wit .... @Big_G_NorthWales might as a Conservative male member draw a substantial male member next to one different candidate on each of his ballot papers - Duty done, view clearly expressed and honour served.
The party is finished either way, at least until it comes back to its senses and allows some future David Cameron to drag it back into the real world, which is not going to happen anytime soon. However, of the two catastrophes facing it, crashing out with no deal is the worse; it will be blamed for a generation.
This here is exactly the problem with the party, that people like yourself are in it when you belong in the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron was a Liberal Democrat who was in the Conservative Party because of his background, not because of his beliefs.
Once you've all defected to the Liberal Democrats - which must be soon going by these figures - maybe the party will get back on track to believing in something and doing conservative things.
Err, I've supported the Conservatives since 1964 when I was 9 years old and got hold of the manifestos of the then three main parties, deciding that the Conservative one made most sense. I've voted Conservative in every election (apart from one local election) since I reached voting age. I even voted Conservative in the recent Euro elections, which seems to be more than most Conservative Party members can claim. Margaret Thatcher is my political heroine. So I really don't think I need to take any lessons from a Kipper as to what a 'true Conservative' is.
I certainly won't join the LibDems, but faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the Conservative Party seems determined to become indistinguishable from UKIP.
Beacause the Enoch Powell loving Viceroy became a member of the Conservative Party a couple of years ago, then "True Conservatives" must be like him. Meanwhile a thinking conservative who regularly posts thought provoking and challenging Conservative ideas is tarred as a Liberal Democrat.
The party is finished either way, at least until it comes back to its senses and allows some future David Cameron to drag it back into the real world, which is not going to happen anytime soon. However, of the two catastrophes facing it, crashing out with no deal is the worse; it will be blamed for a generation.
This here is exactly the problem with the party, that people like yourself are in it when you belong in the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron was a Liberal Democrat who was in the Conservative Party because of his background, not because of his beliefs.
Once you've all defected to the Liberal Democrats - which must be soon going by these figures - maybe the party will get back on track to believing in something and doing conservative things.
Err, I've supported the Conservatives since 1964 when I was 9 years old and got hold of the manifestos of the then three main parties, deciding that the Conservative one made most sense. I've voted Conservative in every election (apart from one local election) since I reached voting age. I even voted Conservative in the recent Euro elections, which seems to be more than most Conservative Party members can claim. Margaret Thatcher is my political heroine. So I really don't think I need to take any lessons from a Kipper as to what a 'true Conservative' is.
I certainly won't join the LibDems, but faute de mieux I might have to vote for them, given that the Conservative Party seems determined to become indistinguishable from UKIP.
Beacause the Enoch Powell loving Viceroy became a member of the Conservative Party a couple of years ago, then "True Conservatives" must be like him. Meanwhile a thinking conservative who regularly posts thought provoking and challenging Conservative ideas is tarred as a Liberal Democrat.
This is more nuts, than a Topic Bar .
I don't think one is 'tarred' as a Liberal Democrat. That imp[lies some form of condemnation!
Seriously though, as one who has never voted Conservative, I see doing so is the result of an understandable philosophical position, if not one I could hold myself.
Mr. Doof, not unlike the French ruling Languedoc or Brittany (assuming you're referring to Wales).
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
BBC 5Live advising that a "Today" programme investigation on R4 this morning will report that Conservative party members are receiving two ballots for the PM beauty show contest.
Who's running this sh*t show? .... UKIP entryists, Tower Hamlets Labour party or the North Korean Elections Unit?
To wit .... @Big_G_NorthWales might as a Conservative male member draw a substantial male member next to one different candidate on each of his ballot papers - Duty done, view clearly expressed and honour served.
Given the two candidates involved, I'm not sure I'd go for a 'substantial' drawing.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
Mr. Doof, not unlike the French ruling Languedoc or Brittany (assuming you're referring to Wales).
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
At risk of being a pedant, with the exceptions of Oxford and Pembroke all Henry VII's most important supporters were Yorkists, former members of Edward IV's government who were less than brilliantly happy at what Richard did to his sons.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!!
Call me Mr Suspicious, Joff, but I get the feeling you're not a fan?
Mr. Observer, aye, I saw that. He's a complete ****ing idiot.
And more fool the craven MPs backing someone they know to be incompetent.
Mr. Doethur, not to mention that the Houses were more names than anything else, and even before 1485 there were plenty of Yorkshiremen who supported the House of Lancaster.
But over time it's morphed into a county rivalry, even though it was never that to start with.
I’ll say one thing for the LibDems: despite all of its ups and downs, I can’t imagine the party ever getting to the stage where large numbers of its members are telling me that I am not liberal enough and should f**k off and join some other party where I belong.
If nothing else the Lib Dems ought to now be extremely wary about large numbers of new members joining them. Anyone thinking "it can't happen to us, we're the nice party" is being reckless.
Some people become members of a political party far too quickly. The Labour Party and to a lesser extent the Conservative Party have encouraged this by making mebership cheap, giving a vote to all members and using the total number of party members as a statistic.
I see a lot of merit in having tiers, affiliate member (or some such name) for new and not so active "members". Full membership requires a year or two as an affiliate, some indication that the person is prepared to actively hel the party and be nominated by another full member.
Good to see kippers are able to identify real conservatives...
Corbynistas are also able to spot lifelong Labour imposters in their party too. Must be a shared sixth sense.
I reckon this explains HY’s belated zeal. He knows he was on the losing side in the Tory civil war, and has been trying to over-compensate for this ever since.
Yet the stain on his character in the eyes of his colleagues is written into the archives of PB and cannot be expunged. One day surely his name will work its way to the top of their hate list.
Perhaps he should create a new account; there must be some lost poets not yet taken?
Mr. Observer, aye, I saw that. He's a complete ****ing idiot.
And more fool the craven MPs backing someone they know to be incompetent.
Mr. Doethur, not to mention that the Houses were more names than anything else, and even before 1485 there were plenty of Yorkshiremen who supported the House of Lancaster.
But over time it's morphed into a county rivalry, even though it was never that to start with.
Not to mention of course that the House of York had very little to do with Yorkshire. Indeed, Richard III was the only one of the family to have a long-term base there (while Duke of Gloucester). His father was based at Fotheringhay and his brother at Ludlow.
Good to see kippers are able to identify real conservatives...
Corbynistas are also able to spot lifelong Labour imposters in their party too. Must be a shared sixth sense.
I reckon this explains HY’s belated zeal. He knows he was on the losing side in the Tory civil war, and has been trying to over-compensate for this ever since.
Yet the stain on his character in the eyes of his colleagues is written into the archives of PB and cannot be expunged. One day surely his name will work its way to the top of their hate list.
Perhaps he should create a new account; there must be some lost poets not yet taken?
Mr. Doof, not unlike the French ruling Languedoc or Brittany (assuming you're referring to Wales).
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
I agree entirely.
You can learn from history. But it is not a science. We can be worried that the political world in Europe and North America is splitting into two extremes, similar Europe in the period between the two world wars. But to rely on what we learnt historically from this period, in order to steer us away from fascism is a dangerous game, because so much of the environment is totally different.
Equally, wanting to take the UK back to its status at the start of 1970 is absurd, as the rest of the world has moved on. England no longer holds the football world cup, Russia has lost most of it's empire, and I am allowed to walk one mile to visit friends without getting shot dead.
That's business in a nutshell. They tried to gouge the Govt. on price, because it would be too embarassing to have blue passports made by....
They were told where to get off.
Taken back control and awarded the contract to the EU
Meh, more money for the government to spend on the NHS. What's not to like?
170 fewer tax / NI receipts. 170 more JSA claims.
That's a dangerous route to go down. If you start including NI/Income tax reciepts in the cost of a project, then you are essentially subsidising domestic producers.
Why charge an economic rate, when you know you'll be evaluated on a rate that includes NI/Income tax benefits to the government?
It is the route taken by other countries and it does not seem unreasonable that the government or any buyer should take into account all the costs, not just the sticker number. Surely car buyers look at fuel consumption and insurance group as well as the showroom cost, and holiday makers consider the cost of fares and meals alongside the hotel bill.
That said, I've no idea what are the ins and outs of this particular deal.
This particular business does a roaring trade manufacturing passports for other countries. How would it survive if other countries did what it’s suggested we do?
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
"There's no doubt at all, that .... er .... you know ...."
Mr. Doof, not unlike the French ruling Languedoc or Brittany (assuming you're referring to Wales).
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
I agree entirely.
You can learn from history. But it is not a science. We can be worried that the political world in Europe and North America is splitting into two extremes, similar Europe in the period between the two world wars. But to rely on what we learnt historically from this period, in order to steer us away from fascism is a dangerous game, because so much of the environment is totally different.
Equally, wanting to take the UK back to its status at the start of 1970 is absurd, as the rest of the world has moved on. England no longer holds the football world cup, Russia has lost most of it's empire, and I am allowed to walk one mile to visit friends without getting shot dead.
On a related point, this article from Freedland drawing some comparisons between Trump and the behaviour of an aspirant dictator:
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
Mr. Doof, not unlike the French ruling Languedoc or Brittany (assuming you're referring to Wales).
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
To quote T.S. Eliot (in relation to memories of the English Civil War):
These men, and those who opposed them And those whom they opposed Accept the constitution of silence And are folded in a single party.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
Perhaps he could take up golf. It would only be a matter of time before he breaks Kim Jong-Il's record for holes in one.
Mr. Doethur, still daft his corpse was stolen by Leicester and used in a dark magic ritual to grant them the premiership title, but there we are.
Who knew Leicester Tigers were into satanic rituals outside of just the scrum ?!?
I seem to recall that that there is video evidence of such an occurrence.. Did Not Neil Back do something "satanic" in the European Cup final v Munster
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
Perhaps he could take up golf. It would only be a matter of time before he breaks Kim Jong-Il's record for holes in one.
I myself am awestruck that intellectual genius in Britain is marked, not by discovering penicillin, designing Concord or engineering the Severn Bridge but by writing a book.
As Johnson's previous efforts with factual accuracy have been questioned, perhaps I can help him get started. Once upon a time there was a man called William Shakespeare...
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
I’m sure HY will provide you with a list given he has been asked many times as to why Johnson would be a good PM.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
Perhaps he could take up golf. It would only be a matter of time before he breaks Kim Jong-Il's record for holes in one.
I myself am awestruck that intellectual genius in Britain is marked, not by discovering penicillin, designing Concord or engineering the Severn Bridge but by writing a book.
As Johnson's previous efforts with factual accuracy have been questioned, perhaps I can help him get started. Once upon a time there was a man called William Shakespeare...
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
I’m sure HY will provide you with a list given he has been asked many times as to why Johnson would be a good PM.
I would like a more robust analysis than 'because he is the only Conservative politian who can beat Corbyn'.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
Perhaps he could take up golf. It would only be a matter of time before he breaks Kim Jong-Il's record for holes in one.
I myself am awestruck that intellectual genius in Britain is marked, not by discovering penicillin, designing Concord or engineering the Severn Bridge but by writing a book.
As Johnson's previous efforts with factual accuracy have been questioned, perhaps I can help him get started. Once upon a time there was a man called William Shakespeare...
Shakespeare scholars around the world will be devastated to know that they've lost such an obvious masterwork, because Boris has had to selflessly respond to a higher calling.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
I’m sure HY will provide you with a list given he has been asked many times as to why Johnson would be a good PM.
I would like a more robust analysis than 'because he is the only Conservative politian who can beat Corbyn'.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
Perhaps he could take up golf. It would only be a matter of time before he breaks Kim Jong-Il's record for holes in one.
I myself am awestruck that intellectual genius in Britain is marked, not by discovering penicillin, designing Concord or engineering the Severn Bridge but by writing a book.
As Johnson's previous efforts with factual accuracy have been questioned, perhaps I can help him get started. Once upon a time there was a man called William Shakespeare...
Since he never used that name, that doesn't help.
In light of Mr Johnson's literary track record 'Once upon a time' still fits the bill. So perhaps a help but not as much as I first thought.
BBC 5Live advising that a "Today" programme investigation on R4 this morning will report that Conservative party members are receiving two ballots for the PM beauty show contest.
Who's running this sh*t show? .... UKIP entryists, Tower Hamlets Labour party or the North Korean Elections Unit?
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
I’m sure HY will provide you with a list given he has been asked many times as to why Johnson would be a good PM.
I would like a more robust analysis than 'because he is the only Conservative politian who can beat Corbyn'.
The cheers reverberating throughout the country when Portillo went will be nothing compared to those that will be heard when Patel and IDS go. For those who are ambivalent about Johnson just need to listen to those who he has chosen as his spokespeople.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
Leaving aside the actual comments, he is really not that good a communicator for someone who is meant to be a good communicator.
Reminds me a bit of Corbyn despite very different styles, as he us a great communicator who usually has supporters and spokespersons clarifying what he communicated.
This from Johnson is just embarrassing. And on so many levels. Such self-centredness, totally inarticulate, entirely incapable of thinking on his feet. Imagine him trying to negotiate anything, let alone a new deal with the EU!! https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
That is some sacrifice, not least for his potential readers.
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
I’m sure HY will provide you with a list given he has been asked many times as to why Johnson would be a good PM.
I would like a more robust analysis than 'because he is the only Conservative politian who can beat Corbyn'.
Corbyn is beginning to look beaten already.
I have never doubted Mr Corbyn's ability to reach the highest levels of ineptitude.
One of our more prolific posters has said on numerous occassions that the only way to save the nation from Soviet-style ruin is to vote for Boris. Indeed this was apparently once borne out by a Yougov poll.
Comments
The rot runs deep.
You have a general idea of where you want to get to, and you keep iterating, making small improvements that get you going to where you want.
Every business I've been involved with that has failed has failed because there was a big plan, and there was going to be a huge amount of work, and this enormous transformation. And everyone loses their jobs because there's no feedback loop in place. You need to be guided, constantly, by discovering if what you're doing is working.
And that's why conservatism - mostly - worked. It was little changes. It was government by iterative change. Even the most extraordinary developments in Britain, like the Glorious Revolution or the Act of Union, were barely more than incremental, especially when compared to our continental neighbours.
Top hole!
No idea where this will end, but the 2 party system looks utterly broken. Neither of them are a party any more, but openly at each others' throats.
We failed to deal with the GFC with anything other than partisan finger pointing.
William Wilberforce was a commie traitor for starters?
What happens if we discover our previous understanding was wrong? Can we not revise our views?
If you prefer Remain then clearly you are not really suited to the current Tory Party
Ripping up overnight the legal, regulatory and commercial basis on which the country has been run for the last 46 years is not a conservative act.
Apparently.
Similarly, the dissolution of the Union is an iterative process that can be traced back to societal and attitude changes and developments with roots in the Victorian era.
Independence is a process, not a destination. Brexiteers haven’t understood that, yet.
Ousting Jeremy Corbyn now could spell catastrophe for Labour
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/04/ousting-jeremy-corbyn-now-would-spell-catastrophe-labour/
Why charge an economic rate, when you know you'll be evaluated on a rate that includes NI/Income tax benefits to the government?
As for 'harm', didn't Thatcher do harm? You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs, my mum always used to say.
That said, I've no idea what are the ins and outs of this particular deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48886246
Really felt that one.
Nobody hurt. Power still on. And Internet still working. Phew.
"Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48887671
Who's running this sh*t show? .... UKIP entryists, Tower Hamlets Labour party or the North Korean Elections Unit?
Boo and also hiss.
This is more nuts, than a Topic Bar .
Seriously though, as one who has never voted Conservative, I see doing so is the result of an understandable philosophical position, if not one I could hold myself.
It seems odd to me, even as a historically interested person, that so many are willing to bang on about the past rather than deal with the reality of today. Byzantium/Constantinople was the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Yet the idea of 'restoring' it now is clearly crackers.
Time moves on. What profit is there to be had by clinging to ancient grudges rather than seeking trying to learn the lessons that were painfully learnt in the past, so we might take advantage of the lesson without incurring the pain?
Should I be loathing Normans for the Harrying/Harrowing of the North? Or despise Lancastrians because they 'cheated' in 1485?
I realise you're almost certainly not one of said people, but the topic is baffling to me.
Corbynistas are also able to spot lifelong Labour imposters in their party too. Must be a shared sixth sense.
https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1147118705253502976?s=21
And more fool the craven MPs backing someone they know to be incompetent.
Mr. Doethur, not to mention that the Houses were more names than anything else, and even before 1485 there were plenty of Yorkshiremen who supported the House of Lancaster.
But over time it's morphed into a county rivalry, even though it was never that to start with.
I see a lot of merit in having tiers, affiliate member (or some such name) for new and not so active "members". Full membership requires a year or two as an affiliate, some indication that the person is prepared to actively hel the party and be nominated by another full member.
Yet the stain on his character in the eyes of his colleagues is written into the archives of PB and cannot be expunged. One day surely his name will work its way to the top of their hate list.
Perhaps he should create a new account; there must be some lost poets not yet taken?
You can learn from history. But it is not a science. We can be worried that the political world in Europe and North America is splitting into two extremes, similar Europe in the period between the two world wars. But to rely on what we learnt historically from this period, in order to steer us away from fascism is a dangerous game, because so much of the environment is totally different.
Equally, wanting to take the UK back to its status at the start of 1970 is absurd, as the rest of the world has moved on. England no longer holds the football world cup, Russia has lost most of it's empire, and I am allowed to walk one mile to visit friends without getting shot dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh
Having read significant segments of Johnson's challenging(*) book on Churchill I got the distinct impression that Churchill's wartime statesmanship, was somehow, through a quirk of time-travelling telepathy, a channelling of Johnson's own genius. I couldn't quite work out whether Johnson was in awe of Churchill, or infact Churchill would have been in awe of Johnson had the timings of the two great men aligned.
As Johnson has now set his sights on Shakespeare does this mean we should credit Johnson with the more impressive works of the bard?
It would be helpful if one of Johnson's admirers could reassure the doubters with a catalogue of genuine achievements why this seemingly flawed individual will become our greatest ever Prime Minister. I have done my own cost-benefit analysis and the costs far outweigh the benefits, to the point where the benefits column remains empty- I can't even add the go to reassurance that at least he would be better than Corbyn.
(*) - tedious.
These men, and those who opposed them
And those whom they opposed
Accept the constitution of silence
And are folded in a single party.
and yes here is the evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfepsoVPtQ
Is this the BXP's first councillor?
As Johnson's previous efforts with factual accuracy have been questioned, perhaps I can help him get started. Once upon a time there was a man called William Shakespeare...
OK, let's start with ballot papers...
Ummmm.
Reminds me a bit of Corbyn despite very different styles, as he us a great communicator who usually has supporters and spokespersons clarifying what he communicated.
One of our more prolific posters has said on numerous occassions that the only way to save the nation from Soviet-style ruin is to vote for Boris. Indeed this was apparently once borne out by a Yougov poll.