well if thats the start of her charm offensive to win the public over i think we had better start preparing for a no deal
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Yes, that's right.
Theresa May has all the charm of a 3-day old dog tod with a flag in it.
Pity so few voters thought that 17 months ago in the general election then really, when they endorsed Labour and Conservative pledges for Brexit, instead of voting Liberal. And yet according to many of them, it's the Brexiters that are the stupid ones.
Q: As a remain voter what is better for the UK your deal or staying?
May: I recognise that staying in the EU caused real concern, including over immigration. The sky won’t fall when we leave. It will be different.
Including?
When May says it will be different outside the EU, she is probably preparing the Brits that battered mackerel and herring will replace cod and haddock.
May: I recognise that staying in the EU caused real concern, including over immigration. The sky won’t fall when we leave. It will be different.
Including?
When May says it will be different outside the EU, she is probably preparing the Brits that battered mackerel and herring will replace cod and haddock.
I dunno, Labour would lose some votes to UKIP, but there's a reasonable possibility it wouldn't impact said seats all that much due to the FPTP system. UKIP are largely still in disarray anyway and I'm not sure they've really got the finances to fund a massive campaign in terms of getting candidates to stand and promoting them properly etc.
I like how the government try to reassure people by informing us it won't quite be as bad as a literal full-scale apocalypse.
Those of us who have escaped will be preparing Red Cross parcels to send to our brethren back in the UK, however, we are not certain that the said parcels will get through.I like how the government try to reassure people by informing us it won't quite be as bad as a literal full-scale apocalypse.
The trouble is this argument sounds awfully like the thinking that Ed and Ed were going through 7 years ago as they struggled to come to terms with a Tory party that was pushing full steam ahead with a destructive and ideological austerity plan, while Labour struggled with the accusation they were to blame for spending too much in the first place. Rather than stand full square behind a rejection of austerity they chased the polls and tried to split the difference, ending up with a kind of austerity-lite position that pleased no-one. While I personally think they were in a lose-lose situation whatever they did, I dont think history has been particularly kind to their attempts to equivocate. I also think its fascainating that it was Corbyn who rode the wave of the rejection of that political triangulation, and yet he seems to be doing something similar on Brexit.
Not in the Labour Hart lands like the North East and not in the swing areas like the West Midlands. There people are still strong Brexiteers.
No one trusts the Lib Dems to live up live up to their campaign promises.
Certainly should give her better material for the next election to replace her 'field of wheat' anecdote.
LibDems are hardly alone in that regard.
Been saying similar myself - a lot of Corbyn's fans have defended him based on his ideals and positions irrespective of how popular he has been at that respective time, and have often not been particularly bothered about polling, yet on the issue of Brexit, polling has suddenly become a convenient defence for his inaction.
If the argument for Corbyn is that he's trying to shift the political paradigm in the UK and that that's something which won't come easily, I struggle to see why that same argument shouldn't apply to Brexit, wherein under the same logic the best way to prevent it or neuter it would be to properly argue against it and highlight its flaws.
I'm sure I read yesterday that according to YouGov Labour held a 3 point lead in the polls. For whatever that is worth.
So when is this happening. Supposedly Brexit will make companies lose a lot of EU talent and have them consider talent from other nations (America included) and so I can get a job in Manchester and buy a season ticket pass and live my dream. So Brexit is a win for me.
don't get serious on me
don't get serious on me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Feck, 833 pages and finally someone came along with a understandable reason for it all.
No but they did the unforgivable and propped up a Tory Government. They also stuck up a massive middle finger at their major supporters, students, by not only not stopping student fees but actually help the Tories to raise student fees significantly.
It's one thing to not live up to your promises but to go completely against your promise by increasing the thing you pledged to remove is unforgivable. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
They are on the caff on other threads as well. "The Arabs own everything" literally what they said. They also own Hollywood apparently literally the opposite of reality. They are a special breed of feckwit.
I'll maintain the idea of the coalition in itself wasn't awful - ultimately the Tories were the biggest party and the only one who could form a government, and it was inevitable that compromise would have to be reached in that regard. The problem was that the Lib Dems didn't push anywhere near hard enough for anything that mattered. Voting reform to PR should've been a demand from the off - they should've also requested more senior cabinet positions. I'd argue they should've tried to neuter austerity much more than they did, but then the problem was that Clegg and a fair few within his party were actually quite right-wing anyway, only really disagreeing massively with the Tories on social matters.
Make sure you're good at picking fruit and vegetables and can convince the company employing you to pay you £30k per year for doing that, and by the way don't speak with a funny accent.
I don't have to convince them with anything given how desperate things are going to become with Brexit
But the government won't let you in if you don't earn £30k. All the unemployed Brits are currently being retrained to retake all the good jobs stolen by EU citizens ready for 30th March.
Sadly the fruit and vegetable growers can't sustain paying such wages so employment may be short term.
I'm joking really, actually I wish I was joking.
I'll agree with most of that. apart from the fact that they supported a Tory party that has decimated schools and hospitals while also going back on their election promises. They could have formed a government with the Labour party that had a lot more in common with what was supposed to be their manifesto.
Our children only have one attempt at lives. The children that are dying in maternity wards now that could have been saved if the hospitals they they we supposed to be born in were properly funded are on all our hands. The students that fall through the cracks in schools that have had their extra curricular activates underfunded are also our responsibility.
I'm only on Circa £40k but I would be willing to increase my tax payments if the Government could insure that the money would go to hospitals and schools. I don't want a tax cut if it means that the NHS and schools are poorly funded.
They couldn't have - both parties would've been comfortably short of a majority in 2010. The Lib Dems could, of course, have just allowed the Tories to operate as a minority government, although in the position of kingmakers it'd have essentially amounted to a coalition anyway.
I had a conversation with an ardent Brexiter today, he was delighted because Brexit would mean the UK would be a low tax haven. When I asked him if he thought his local police, schools and hospitals had enough staff and resources he thought they definitely did not. He then went a bit quiet when I pointed out the link between taxes and public services.
Special kind of delusion that lot.
I'm pretty sure that they could have made a coalition with either party.
Edit
Tory 306
Labour 258
Lib Dem 57
Democratic Unionist 8
Labour and Lib Dem could have got 315 which would have been a majority.
Last edited:
Nah, Labour/Lib Dems didn't have the numbers in 2010.
Tory 306
Labour 258
Lib Dem 57
Democratic Unionist 8
Labour and Lib Dem could have got 315 which would have been a majority.
If you're so keen for people to live up to their promises then you must want Corbyn to keep his promise to uphold Brexit then. So long as you take your share of the blame when it goes to shit.
Stating from the beginning that I am of the opinion that those territories geographically should belong to Morroco, (and not islands and not 3), the situation is different. And before you think I am defending Spain, I am a catalan independentist
Morroco as a entity didn't exist till way after those territories were part of Spain, while Gibraltar is part of a treaty agreement, brittish empire grabbed more territory than the treaty agreement said 1 hundred years after.
Saying all that, I believe that people should belong where they decide it, and gibraltar made it clear in 2002 with a 99% that they wanted to remain in that status quo (as I suspect Ceuta and Melilla would vote to remain spanish and not Morrocan.
Conclusion: good exercise of Whataboutism
My main problem with them is propping up a austerity Tory government that has killed children by under-funding the NHS.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's not how it works.
I get that, I voted Labour myself in 2010. However in 2017 Labour pledged to uphold Brexit, did you not think that might affect the NHS at all?
Yes it is you need a majority.
315 is not a majority in the House of Commons. Other parties included the SNP, Plaid, SDLP, Greens and Plaid Cymru.
Okay so they would have needed SNP and Plaid Cymru they could have made a government.
Labour refuse to go into coalitions with nationalist parties who advocate separation from the UK. The Lib Dems would take the same position - but even if they hypothetically hadn't they wouldn't have had the numbers to go into government with Labour. And a coalition involving four parties, two of whom wouldn't want to be in the country they're in a coalition for, clearly wouldn't have lasted and would've had no stability whatsoever.