EU-BREXIT - Page 186 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Ter
#15004446
Delingpole: Viva Brexit! Nigel Farage Totally Destroys BBC’s Andrew Marr

Nigel Farage just totally destroyed a BBC interviewer on TV this morning.

And, in doing so, Farage reminded us exactly why his Brexit Party is flying so high in the polls, why he’s being tipped as a future prime minister, and why the current shambles of a Conservative party is so inadequate to the task of beating him…

Interviewer Andrew Marr began by making the huge mistake of treating Farage like the BBC treats all politicians to the right of Lenin: with unutterable contempt, as if he were a dangerous idiot with wacky views which no civilised person could possibly hold.

Marr began (from a long list of “gotcha” questions designed to make Farage look like an extremist) with climate change:

“Do you still believe that worrying about global warming is the stupidest thing in human history?”

Farage was ready:

“I believe that if we decide in this country to tax ourselves to the hilt, to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in manufacturing industries, given that we produce less than 2 per cent of global CO2, that isn’t terribly intelligent.”

Then he segued seamlessly into an attack on the BBC:

“Here we are with one of the biggest changes in politics that has ever occurred and you don’t want to talk about it. What is wrong with the BBC?”

A more nimble interviewer might have changed tack at this point. Not Marr, who doggedly continued reading from his pre-prepared list of questions about Farage’s supposedly controversial views on gun control (an issue of zero interest to anyone in the United Kingdom) and Vladimir Putin, entirely proving Farage’s point for him.

Farage’s point, which almost everyone watching would have seen instantly, is that the BBC is the enemy of change and hope. It is part of the sclerotic, arrogant, anti-democratic, left-leaning, virulently pro-Remain political Establishment which the Brexit Party is on the verge of overthrowing.

“Do you still feel that people with HIV shouldn’t be allowed into the United Kingdom?” Marr continued, still reading from his notes, his voice a bit tremulous at this point.

Farage was ready:

“Do I think the National Health Service is there for British people? Yes I absolutely do.”

Marr was starting to sound pathetic now.

“So you still do?” he said. Pathetically.

Farage went off on one:

“This is absolutely ludicrous. I have never in my life seen a more ridiculous interview than this. You are not prepared to talk about what is going on this country today. You’re in denial. The BBC’s in denial. The Tory party’s in denial. The Labour party’s in denial. I think you’re in for a bigger surprise on Thursday week [European elections day] than you can even imagine.”

And he’s right. He is absolutely right.

Something extraordinary is happening in British politics right now. It has been a long time coming but now it’s here — and Nigel Farage is its vessel.
People are saying how much more professional he has become, how the jolly cheeky chappy Mr Toad character of yore has mutated into a serious player.

But I don’t think it’s that. Farage has been saying similar things on the campaign trail and in interviews for years — decades even. It’s just that where before the prevailing, BBC-dominated political culture was able to ridicule him and marginalise him it can’t any more, because it has lost its power and prestige. The mood has shifted. People have just had enough — and finally, belatedly, are coming round to realising that the BBC is not their benign Auntie friend but very much part of the problem.
If I were a Tory leadership candidate I would be terrified by this interview, particularly by the way that Farage dealt with that global warming question.

He gave the right answer, the honest answer, the true answer and the answer that is best for the British electorate.

Even those on the supposed right of the Conservative party, like Boris Johnson, are still floundering around trying to have their cake and eat it by expressing enthusiasm for free markets while simultaneously reassuring us that they understand that climate change is a problem. Why would you wish to support such cautious, cowardly has-beens when there’s a revolution in the air which might yet deliver all those good things the Conservative party has failed to deliver?

Farage is on a roll. The Brexit Party is on a roll. In a fortnight’s time it’s going to win the European Elections. After that, maybe, the world.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... stoppable/

When Farage made his entry in the European Parliament, he announced he would take the UK out of the EU. The Eurocrats had a good laugh. After the Brexit referendum, he observed that they were not laughing any longer.
I am sure the Eurocrats are not eager to see fifty or so new Euro Parliamentarians from the Brexit party enter their palace in Brussels.
By snapdragon
#15004452
I didn't see Farage destroying Andrew Marr. Quite the reverse.

I saw Farage throwing a tantrum when he was asked whether he'd changed his views on the NHS, gun control, Vladimir Putin and climate change.

He always does it when asked to explain himself.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#15004455
snapdragon wrote:I didn't see Farage destroying Andrew Marr. Quite the reverse.

I saw Farage throwing a tantrum when he was asked whether he'd changed his views on the NHS, gun control, Vladimir Putin and climate change.

He always does it when asked to explain himself.

All leftards have their eyes in backwards.

-----------------
In other news:



I wonder if any labour MPs ever got that?
By Rich
#15004502
Potemkin wrote:Their positions are no more under threat than they were, say, during the 1960s or 70s. Either your statement is trivially true (in the sense that all political positions are under threat, all the time) or is dubious at best (if you are claiming that the current crisis of conservative values is unprecedented).

The British Conservative party is most certainly under threat in a way it wasn't in the 1960s or 1970's. From 1929 till the rise of UKIP post 2010, the Conservative party was under no serious threat as the hegemonic party of the British right. More generally the current threat to the established western conservative parties is not unprecedented, but it is new and I would strongly advocate, distinctly different to the preceding decades.

Potemkin wrote:Political positions change over time. Do the political parties nowadays stand for the same principles which, say, the Whigs and the Tories stood for in 1719? Obviously not. Is this a problem? Not really, no. Societies change over historical time, and political parties must change with them.

I specifically referred to the Tories 2.0. The Conservative party that was founded by Peel was organisationally and ideologically disjunct from the earlier Tories. The Conservatives or new Tories have faced a number of crisis, but since 1929, when they replaced the Liberals as the party of classical Liberal economics, although their policies have evolved radically, their political positioning has remained remarkably consistent until recently. So the Tories have been the socially conservative party, although their social policies have become ever more socially liberal. Under Cameron, it seems to me that the Tories ceased to be the socially conservative party.


Potemkin wrote:...which I've always thought was idiotic. How can the majority of the working class afford to buy their own home, especially in London or the South-East of England? It's absurd. This was never anything more than a lower-middle-class fantasy.

Indeed. But they should never have pinned their colours to that particular mast to begin with. The continental European conservatives certainly don't do this.

Home ownership reached 70% at one point. That's a huge level, probably the majority of the manual working class were home owners, certainly the majority over thirty. I was and remain intransigently opposed to the selling off of council houses and other social housing at prices heavily discounted from the market rates. However it seems undeniable to me that this policy served the Tories well. Keynes dictum "We're all dead in the long run." all though referring to economics, applies well to party politics as well. Successful parties and party leaderships find ways to win in the here and now, without worrying about possible repercussion decades down the line, that may never come to pass, or may prove irrelevant.

I was bitterly disappointed by the Lib Dems betrayal of proportional representation in 2010, but lies and betrayals served Nick Clegg well. He got to be deputy Prime Minister for five years and them moved on to a nice plumb job at Facebook. Becoming a Minister or even Prime Minister, doesn't motivate me, but it does for so many of our politicians. I merely try and combat the recurring comforting morality tales, from all parts of the political spectrum, that politicians will be punished for their lies, duplicity and selfish egotism. Sometimes yes but mostly not.

Its common in political commentary to see repeated existential threats to our main political parties. Every election is hyped as the most important in a generation. I sense your instinct is deep scepticism to this perpetual overhyped political hysteria. I think those are praiseworthy instincts. I do feel though that in this instance there is a significant possibility of a dramatic change to our political landscape.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15004549
FARAGE will not be PM following the next general election, because the BREXIT Party is a single-issue party, which is fair enough in terms of fighting the european elections, but not for a general election.
More likely(marginally)is that the Tories, as well as Labour, become 'minority' parties in a parliament where there is no working majority.

In other words, this country will be mimicking Italy,but on steroids & with much more serious consequences for our democracy.

That is because of the fixed parliament act, where a political stalemate in a parliament where there is no concensus, will literally destroy our democracy after the current debacle that exhibits no common position.

Only the possibility of a radically different Tory leader replacing T. MAY or CORBYN falling on his sword before the next election could effect the potential to change things in the country after another election.

That election would still have the 2016 referendum result to be delivered(if not done so before then) & neither of the main parties would dare to produce a manifesto with anything less than a cast iron promise to deliver our exit from europe.

That is because the people will not vote for them otherwise, the people have yet to punish the individual MP's for their part played in frustrating our leaving europe by their shenanigans in parliament, as only the parties are beginning to pay the price & the big stick is yet to come.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15004632
SolarCross wrote:I wonder if any labour MPs ever got that?

Wonder no more.

Google Tony Blair and the Trimdon Labour Club.


:)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15004646
SolarCross wrote:... can't find anything saying he got a standing ovation

"He ended his 20-minute speech with the words “Thank You” and was given another standing ovation, after receiving the same accolade in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon."


https://metro.co.uk/2007/06/27/blair-bo ... ou-477447/


:)
By Rich
#15004675
Yes unhappiness with Blair and the Labour right leadership really only became endemic after the 2010 election defeat, and magnified further after the 2015 election defeat. This is similar to what happened in 1979. Labour members tend to accept moderate, triangulating rightwing-Labour leadership while they are winning elections, but feel betrayed when they get neither a principled stand not electoral success.

What they seem blind to, is that Labour moved leftward during its thirteen years in office. It was this move to the left together with Gordon Brown's buffoonish leadership that brought the Tories back into government not that Labour was insufficiently radical. Forcing Blair out and replacing him with the far less likeable Gordon Brown was itself a concession to the left. Lefties obsessed about the Iraq war, but most people didn't care about the Iraq war. Labour only became tarnished by the Iraq war because lefties went on and on about it. Ian Duncan Smith attacked Blair for not being pro war enough. He criticised Blair for not rushing into war faster. But lefties have in their idiocy succeeded in helping the even more pro war Tories.

Now I was disgusted by the sanctions against Iraq and fanatically pro regime change, but perhaps both I and the hard anti Iraq war people can at least agree that Iraq should be an important issue. Yes it should be, but it is not.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15005101
Ter wrote:https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/12/farage-destroys-marr-shows-brexit-party-is-unstoppable/

When Farage made his entry in the European Parliament, he announced he would take the UK out of the EU. The Eurocrats had a good laugh. After the Brexit referendum, he observed that they were not laughing any longer.
I am sure the Eurocrats are not eager to see fifty or so new Euro Parliamentarians from the Brexit party enter their palace in Brussels.



Nonsense-

I saw that interview, I agree absolutely with your description of MARR & the BBC.

I also saw an interview on the Victoria Derbyshire programme this morning, in which she interviewed a UKIP candidate in the euro-elections & the identical BBC methodology was used as invective to poison viewers minds on the image of the person being intervied.

It is my considered view, of which others may digress, that, the BBC has crossed the 'red lines' of impartiality in the making of it's programmes & it is increasingly becoming deeply offensive to many licence fee payers.

I consider that the licence fee payers are entitled to have a deciding power, to decide on the type,as well as the content of 'debatable' programs on issues affecting the public's perceptions on matters that could concern them & that's because it is licence fee payers who are bankrolling the BBC in general-without having a single bit of influence on it's output.

The FARAGE, UKIP candidate interview examples are as offensive to some people as Jeremy KYLE's effects on one of his guest who was driven to terminate himself following his exposure as a 'liar' on that program.

These 'interviews' by the programmes involved are a fig-leaf to cover the BBC's political assassination attempts of political expression by politicians, of whom we can all aggree or disagree with, but, of whom the public have a right to hear what they say-without a BBC political agenda choreographed to convert 'interviews' into personal or political assassination's.
Last edited by Nonsense on 16 May 2019 13:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Ter
#15005103
An eerie silence has descended on the Brexit thread.
Since the opinion polls have predicted a huge win for the Brexit party, many buttocks have been clenched in fearful anticipation and anxiety :)

I think that for the next general election every single candidate for every party should be clearly identified as a Leaver or a Remainer. Enough already with the hypocrisy.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15005104
Ter wrote:An eerie silence has descended on the Brexit thread.
Since the opinion polls have predicted a huge win for the Brexit party, many buttocks have been clenched in fearful anticipation and anxiety :)

I think that for the next general election every single candidate for every party should be clearly identified as a Leaver or a Remainer. Enough already with the hypocrisy.



Nonsense-

Exactly as I have described before, in which 'leaver' MP's & potential MP candidates will be judged against their actions that have been used to thwart the decision of the people to leave the E.U on the 29th March 2019.

That public diligence, of holding those current MP's to account for their anti-democratic actions, will see many of them lose their seats & the prospect of any of the main parties holding a working majority is very small indeed as a result.

Politicians think the public have short memories, they will find out the hard way that they do have very long memories indeed.

For what it's worth, I know that the Tories always ditch any leader that is a political liability, as Theresa MAY undoubtedly always was, which begs the question, were any of them of 'leadership' quality when she was 'elected' , to which the answer is obviously no.

For what it's worth, I think that we are heading for a 'no deal' by default, as revoking A50 would be suicidal for democracy in this country, that is the logical outcome despite a 'no deal' ammendment vote being passed in parliament.

'Leaving' will be the manifestation that the people are 'sovereign' & not politicians or their political parties.

If any politican doubts the answer to that, then they should consult the Head of State, the Queen, for she will tell them that 'parliament' is the voice of the people when matters of deliberation of power are involved between the people & the Head of State, the Monarch.
The Monarch holds the people's power in trust until the state is defeated in war through capitulation or defeat, on which neither the state or the monarch thereafter exist, being thereafter the subject of the victor's designs.
By Rich
#15005134
Ter wrote:An eerie silence has descended on the Brexit thread.
Since the opinion polls have predicted a huge win for the Brexit party, many buttocks have been clenched in fearful anticipation and anxiety :)

Not mine, Brexit is going fantastic. My hope is to bring down the First Past the Post and the two party system. Its still far from certain, but now we're in with a real chance. I had been planning to post before May made her announcement.

So my question is what should Boris do? I think he has to make his move after the Euro elections. I think if he gets the leadership, he's got to go for a General Election in early autumn. The quicker the General Election, the less chance the Brexit Party has to organise. He has to ask for a comfortable majority so he can push through a real Brexit.

Now he may not get a comfortable majority, in fact he could put Corbyn into number 10. But he can then blame that on the Brexit party. Now in the past losing an election was fatal for Tory leaders, but these are not normal times. Still such a gamble is not something a Tory leader would normally do with nearly three years left to run. But to repeat these are not normal times. Boris wanted to wait till after Brexit had been delivered before becoming Prime Minster, as did all the other leadership contenders, but now they have no choice but to grasp the poisoned chalice. For Boris as for the other potential Tory leaders, the worse the Euro result the better. The worse it looks when Boris, or who ever takes over, the better their chance of surviving a poor election result.
By B0ycey
#15005138
Ter wrote:An eerie silence has descended on the Brexit thread.
Since the opinion polls have predicted a huge win for the Brexit party, many buttocks have been clenched in fearful anticipation and anxiety :)

I think that for the next general election every single candidate for every party should be clearly identified as a Leaver or a Remainer. Enough already with the hypocrisy.


Well I'm all for parties picking affiliation to a Brexit position. The problem is that Brexit doesn't seem to be a single demographic and as such splits party lines. And that is why The Brexit Party might well be the biggest party after the EU elections but still only pick up a third of the vote. As the other parties fight for the large remain vote, The Brexit Party will take the minority leave vote. People think this is a win for Brexit. But the truth is something the polls don't show. If the parties united, they smash Farage and his vision to pieces.

As for the silence on this thread, have you not considered it could be because not much has happened with Brexit recently?
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15005149
'BoJo' has confirmed his position as a contender for the leadership of the Tory Party, which will take place after the E.U elections.

The 'winner' of the leadership contest,will be in a weaker position, because Theresa MAY is a traitor by having given MP's the freedom & power to destroy the mandate given to the government by the people, to take us out of the E.U.

However, the 'winner', whom can only only be a Leave P.M, will have an opportunity to take us out of the E.U [b]without[/b] a so-called 'BREXIT' deal.

The only other option available, which is political cyanide, is to revoke A50 & therefore will not happen.

For those who think that a 'deal' is the best option, will be disappointed, but that is the consequence of MP's in parliament of all parties, who will be held to account at the next general election.

An 'alternative' deal is out of the question, because of the WA not being passed in parliament & Labour is just as culpable on that score as all the other 's, MP's or their parties or 'grouping's'.

What not so long ago seemed to be beneficial to CORBYN's Labour Party, is far,far less so as of now, the antics of that party & it's remain MP's are the source of that uncertainty.

That has direct ramifications to how people will vote at the next election & on the lives of people hoping for the change they deserve.

Recent policy revelations, athough not of themselves individually politically suicidal, the expection for instance, of the utility's re-nationalisation, the premium cost of that, due to Labour's incompetent calculations, will leave either less money for the poor, old or young, as well as for local councils.

The facts are, the utility companies should only be paid, the monies with which they were bought with at the time of privatisation, less, the sale value of fixed assets & with a £20 BILLION penalty charge for not reducing charges to consumers when the price of gas & oil on the open markets fell since then.

The current market value of the utility companies is down to the charges that consumers have paid since privatisation, that price on the companies value, is speculative, based on the yield(return) of investments by shareholders, whether it's mpension funds or individuals, for whom yearly dividends on the cost price of their shares is all that matters & again it is the consumer who has paid the dividends.

For any long term loans within the utility companies on return to the public, they will be a simple transfer from the company-the Treasury, the cost being met by the taxpayers as such & as consumers.

By paying only what was received by the taxpayer for them, the companies can be re-nationalised at nominal cost to the taxpayer, without rewarding the speculators twice, once at purchase, along with dividends received & secondly from the sale back to the government.

As long as Labour state in detail as above, what the policy is, the speculators can then whistle for the rest for evermore.

Labour have to think like business, in order to get one back on them, the mantra that, 'Labour is & always will be 'pro-business', should be dumped unceremoniously in the political trash bin where it belongs.

That mantra, first used by Gordon BROWN, along with his, 'Light Touch' regulation, is what contributed to the 2008 financial crash here in the U.K, it was adopted by the Tories, who have always been 'pro - business' anyway, which takes a higher priority than people do to them.

It's Labour's lack of a business or financial acumen that makes them incompetent in government, they have to be told that a 'democracy' is of,by & for the people.
Once that lesson is learnt again, business can take it's rightful place as the oxen cart that delivers for the people & not the reverse where the people provide the excessive profits for a few in business.

We can\will make a success of post E.U membership, if that is what we want & I know that it is within our grasp to take the opportunities that our freedom will bring.
Last edited by Nonsense on 16 May 2019 22:45, edited 2 times in total.
By B0ycey
#15005157
Nonsense wrote:However, the 'winner', whom can only only be a Leave P.M,


I won't be holding my breath as the final vote goes to the members, but the winner can also be a Remainer FYI. Hard to predict Tory thinking, but as Tory MPs are split on Brexit I suspect it might be BoJo vs Rudd (if she puts her name in the hat).
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15005159
Rich wrote:The British Conservative party is most certainly under threat in a way it wasn't in the 1960s or 1970's. From 1929 till the rise of UKIP post 2010, the Conservative party was under no serious threat as the hegemonic party of the British right. More generally the current threat to the established western conservative parties is not unprecedented, but it is new and I would strongly advocate, distinctly different to the preceding decades.


I specifically referred to the Tories 2.0. The Conservative party that was founded by Peel was organisationally and ideologically disjunct from the earlier Tories. The Conservatives or new Tories have faced a number of crisis, but since 1929, when they replaced the Liberals as the party of classical Liberal economics, although their policies have evolved radically, their political positioning has remained remarkably consistent until recently. So the Tories have been the socially conservative party, although their social policies have become ever more socially liberal. Under Cameron, it seems to me that the Tories ceased to be the socially conservative party.



Home ownership reached 70% at one point. That's a huge level, probably the majority of the manual working class were home owners, certainly the majority over thirty. I was and remain intransigently opposed to the selling off of council houses and other social housing at prices heavily discounted from the market rates. However it seems undeniable to me that this policy served the Tories well. Keynes dictum "We're all dead in the long run." all though referring to economics, applies well to party politics as well. Successful parties and party leaderships find ways to win in the here and now, without worrying about possible repercussion decades down the line, that may never come to pass, or may prove irrelevant.

I was bitterly disappointed by the Lib Dems betrayal of proportional representation in 2010, but lies and betrayals served Nick Clegg well. He got to be deputy Prime Minister for five years and them moved on to a nice plumb job at Facebook. Becoming a Minister or even Prime Minister, doesn't motivate me, but it does for so many of our politicians. I merely try and combat the recurring comforting morality tales, from all parts of the political spectrum, that politicians will be punished for their lies, duplicity and selfish egotism. Sometimes yes but mostly not.

Its common in political commentary to see repeated existential threats to our main political parties. Every election is hyped as the most important in a generation. I sense your instinct is deep scepticism to this perpetual overhyped political hysteria. I think those are praiseworthy instincts. I do feel though that in this instance there is a significant possibility of a dramatic change to our political landscape.



Nonsense-

Rich- " Under Cameron, it seems to me that the Tories ceased to be the socially conservative party".

I think you are correct there Rich.

If you recall a few years ago, both Labour & the Tory parties were in something of a dither on the 'democratic' deficit in that people were giving up on politics by not voting(nothing changes).

In response, both main parties feigned 'conversion' to 'Liberalism'(yes, another 'ism')by 'jettisoning' their respective ideologies which resulted in BLAIR's 'NEW' Labour, with the Tories in the opposition wings scheming to have a leader with the cloned image of a 'Tory' BLAIR, ready as a PM in waiting to take power at election time.

People of course, became fed up with uncontrolled mass immigration, with it's effects on our country, resulting in the tone deaf Gordon BROWN denigrating a Labour voter after she raised the issue of migration with him on an election walkabout, calling her(Mrs DUFFY-if I am correct?)a bigot.

Once elected, CAMERON, along with George OSBORNE enacted their pre-planned attack on the 'benefit culture' of this country with the policy called, 'Welfare Reform', a euphimism for austerity on steroids, directed at the very people with the least resources to help themselves up from the bottom of the pile.

That was no 'problem' for the dynamic duo, who hit the ground running to attack the poor with cuts, that were then transferred as cash, into the pockets of the rich-better off with massive tax cuts.

That then set the stage for CAMERONS 'sermons' about society & enabling 'charities' to give comfort or substance to those in need(whom CAMERON & OSBORNE duly placed in the position of need).

So yes, the Tories gave up on 'social conservatism', but that term is just code for, "there are only, 'them & us' in society", not that the Tories consider the 'them' as being part of society, they are after all, rejects at the bottom of the pile, with nothing to do with 'Tory' policies on austerity, of which Labour broadly supported the Tories on, until it turned round & bit them on the rear politically.

Under previous Labour administrations embarrassed about Tory attacks on Labour's 'tax & spend' policies, they(Labour)would pledge to keep the Tory budgets in place twice in succession, of course that was to cover their own prejudices towards the less well off, they were after all, 'Tory' light touch 'NEW' Labour, or should that be, 'NEW' 'Tory' Party?

Looked at from the point of view of a political spectrum, 'New Labour' were 'Tory' left-wing & the 'other' Tories were the right-wing of the party & there was no 'Old' Labour still in existence under BLAIR-BROWN.
They hijacked freedom of speech as well as democracy, as expressed in conference speeches, which were restricted from proper debates hitherto commonly held each year until the BLAIR-BROWN period & last but not least was BLAIR's abolition of CLAUSE 4.

I see the attraction of CORBYN, but my instinct knows that, unless Labour consolidates any changes by keeping the Tories out of power for a couple of generations, then any such changes will be reversed by them & so many Labour pledges are never delivered that stand the test of time.

As I say, the E.U referendum provided CORBYN's Labour Party with a golden opportunity to take the political initiative leading to power, that has largely failed, due to internal opposition by 'BLAIRITES' within the party, some within the Shadow Cabinet, riding the reins of political opportunity, providingt the prospect of power, if elected.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15005163
B0ycey wrote:I won't be holding my breath as the final vote goes to the members, but the winner can also be a Remainer FYI. Hard to predict Tory thinking, but as Tory MPs are split on Brexit I suspect it might be BoJo vs Rudd (if she puts her name in the hat).



Nonsense-

You could be right there BOYcey, but I think that Tory MP's will know that they cannot afford another 'traitor' remain leader to be their leader & PM.

There will of course, be some pressure to go for an election & a 'remain' Tory leader is not going to get a working majority when the public have already been betrayed once on the 2016 referendum result.

It is only a 'leave' leader that, if not getting us out of the E.U immediately, can then go to the country with a clear promise to deliver immediately parliament is reconvened following an election with that working majority, otherwise CORBYN will win power.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#15005285
The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. US/UK/Isreal support for jihadists in Syria killed hundreds of thousands more.
The very simple answer to the question posed is that centre left middle class remainers do not have a problem with millions of Arabs dying far away.

However they DO have a very serious problem with remotetest possibility that their standard of living might be dropping by 5% or 10 % and / or that the value of their house might fall by 10 or 20 thousand pounds.
By Rich
#15005294
redcarpet wrote:The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The second world killed tens of millions of civilians, so what? The overwhelming majority of civilians killed in Iraq were not killed by western forces. They were killed by Muslims.

US/UK/Isreal support for jihadists in Syria killed hundreds of thousands more.

Again the overwhelming majority of deaths were by Muslims, or by the Assad regime that pretended to be Muslim. Western support by our Zionist lackey Jew worshipping leaders certainly exacerbated the problem, but the fundamental problem is Islam.

The very simple answer to the question posed is that centre left middle class remainers do not have a problem with millions of Arabs dying far away.

However they DO have a very serious problem with remotetest possibility that their standard of living might be dropping by 5% or 10 % and / or that the value of their house might fall by 10 or 20 thousand pounds.

True, but such is normal human sentiment. Western compassion for people in distant lands might be weak and inconsistent, but modern westerners are still the most compassionate people to have ever existed in the history of the world. White Infidel Gentiles are constantly judged against an inhuman ideal, while the hideous crimes of Muslims, non Whites and Jews stretching back through the millennia are simply ignored.
  • 1
  • 184
  • 185
  • 186
  • 187
  • 188
  • 206

White men are the biggest threat to America […]

Not in the least. As I expected, no evidence. […]

I say let the racists say racist stuff because in […]

July 17, Wednesday The morning papers of Washin[…]