[quote="Presvias"]No, people elect governments largely because of the party's leaders.
You're disputing a simple self evident truth.
Erh! No, they vote in a government, according to the policies that appeal to them.
Maybe your version is not quite as 'truthful' as you portray it.
)Ah you didn't get the reference then?
I think that you ought to consider becoming more 'enlightened' yourself, your ignorance is now in full display. https://mobile.twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1169664123745054727
Nothing to do with 'indigenous' or non-indigenous folks, but I'm not sure why you even brung that up?
And yes I am a fan of old Attlee style values. That should have been implicit in my previous posts? It doesn't mean I'm an old labour zealot, or a massive Corbynhead though.Nonsense
It was brought up because it was directly analogous to the Link's content, indiginous people were left in no doubt that certain migrant areas were 'no go' areas for indiginous people...comprendo?
Doubt away, the fact is that many nasty allegations have been made against him, and he's said loads of nasty things which have been proven too.
Even Rudd, my MP, said that he's basically a nasty piece of work.
You post content that any reasonable person is entitled to accept as a statement of fact,of which it was not, they were allegations, that were denied by others present, yet you posted them,one assumes that you actually read & understood what you were reading before posting the Link- I leave others to consider as to the reason why. Don't shoot the messenger.
In this case, I think you just shot yourself, that's what happens with 'trigger-happy' folks. [b]Oh you don't care about that?https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... k-47560192
I heard him say that on LBC.
"Mr Johnson did not make clear which investigation he was referring to, according to BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw".
He was making a perfectly valid point on the vast amount of time & public money being spent on historical cases.
That was a ligitimate comment on the sheer cost, but, you are right to say that it's a destestable comment as it stands,on that point I couldn't disagree one jot.
The question he ought to have been asked if he wished to talk specifically about child-related cases is, why, when so much money is spent on policing, are there so many unanswered cases outstanding? False confidence, machiavelliany, bluster, charm (ok he does have a tiny bit) and a tiny bit of humour?
The last two 'qualities' are not enough to justify him
Compared to his predecessor, I would put the score then, at 2-1 in his favour. No he doesn't. He actually is still a secret Brexiteer IMHO, he just can't admit it to his party. It'd be the end of him.Nonsense.
The way that things are currently going then, he doesn't have too long to wait for the end.(shrugs) If you say so, I didn't even know such words appeared in there. You obviously have more experience of it than me.
(since when are horror film actors & German words chav words ).Nonsense.
LOL, I wasn't specifically referring to those particular words, rather the 'spaffying' type, to which BoJo was attributing the wasted
money on the child investigations,for which, if nothing came out of them, I would agree with that specific point, but condemn the prior lack of results in any such investigations already carried out & he went wrong IMHO, by linking child abuse investigations, with the waste of public money.
True. Yet, I'm probably still a billion times more cynical than you. Nonsense-
Give it time, I may catch you up there.You're undermining your own argument here IMHO.Nonsense.
Whatever will be, will be, we will just have to wait & see.Oh gawd, this is wishful thinking taken to new heights.Nonsense.
Just part of the blame game, for which the voters will be the sole judge of.But this whole debate is based on the premise of a 2022 suspension(!), you clearly knew that.Nonsense.
I think you misunderstood the point then, it was an opinion, on a hypothetical question, to which I thought, considering the goings on in parliament by MP's,he Speaker, the Lords etc, could be justified, so, if it placates you, consider it a hypothetical premise.....you see what a little 'diplomacy' does now. Show me proof that it'll be ok and that it's 'fairly healthy' compared to other EU economies currently?Nonsense.
The European Union economy advanced 0.2 percent quarter-on-quarter in the three months to June 2019, slowing from a 0.5 percent expansion in the previous period. It was the weakest growth rate since the first quarter of 2013. GDP Growth Rate in European Union averaged 0.44 percent from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 1.30 percent in the third quarter of 1999 and a record low of -2.70 percent in the first quarter of 2009.
The U.K GDP increased by 0.3% in the 3 months to July 2019, the latest available figures.Because it enriches certain individuals at the expense of country and party.Nonsense-
But then, were it sold off, those companies would be taking on all of the overheads,long term cost etc.
Then, unlike a state owned service such as the N.H.S, the element of competition would rapidly assert itself, takeovers would happen, like the privatised railways show, consumer satisfaction falls, prices rise & eventually, along comes the inevitable crisis point.
Then the state would have to re-engage, thus completing the circle & the consumers(patients) would end up paying more taxes along with less services by way of more rationing. The Tories are already infighting And they've been hijacked by Lord Voldemort aka Dom Cummings, and Boris's merry horror film extremist cast..Nonsense-
So too are Labour,see what their conference stirs up, they too have been 'highjacked' by the BLAIRITE's, well those that haven't jumped ship, that is.