The hard right and the fascists have already risen.
Mm. No.
They are on the rise, they're clearly not yet in charge.
So who was Home Secretary when this outrage occurred?
But at least all the problems with the Windrush Generation were sorted out within the fortnight that she promised, weren't they? Just like the promise to get the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster properly rehoused, also within a fortnight. Does anyone know how many of them are still mouldering in hotels or B&Bs?
There's a kind of optimism which, when analysed, is even worse than simple lying, because it doesn't actually care whether what it promises is true or not.
Isn't it strange that politicians can apparently say what they like on such issues and escape lightly - but get pilloried if they dare make an inadvertent comment which just might be interpreted as racist? (Which doesn't mean that I condone racism!)
Isn't it strange that politicians can apparently say what they like on such issues and escape lightly - but get pilloried if they dare make an inadvertent comment which just might be interpreted as racist? (Which doesn't mean that I condone racism!)
Politicians lie. They seem to get away with it. I don't know why we let them. We shouldn't let this happen.
When it involves peoples lives like this (or with Brexit), we should make a fuss. And - more significantly, I think - the speaker and the house ethics committee should adress this.
They won't of course. Unethical behaviour among our politicians continues to be acceptable. For some reason.
Apparently Treeza is now claiming that her 'deal' will stop EU migrants 'jumping the queue.'
Given her past history with the ghastly 'go home' vans referred to above and her racist dog-whistles when Sadiq Khan was the London mayoral candidate, really with her it's all about hating foreigners, isn't it?
Apparently Treeza is now claiming that her 'deal' will stop EU migrants 'jumping the queue.'
Given her past history with the ghastly 'go home' vans referred to above and her racist dog-whistles when Sadiq Khan was the London mayoral candidate, really with her it's all about hating foreigners, isn't it?
Evil, that's what she is.
I don't know, I think I've lost the ability to detect evil. It certainly seems to be about power and expediency etc. But I'm having trouble deciding how to define that when it has such painful human effects.
What I find intriguing is that Mays Brexit plan will mean more immigrants from Asia. I am not sure that this is what most of the racist brexit people expected.
What perhaps I find most disturbing about her is that she always chooses the most divisive way of expressing herself.
So that those who have a bit of experience of the world rather than being narrow 'little-Englanders' are Citizens of Nowhere - a phrase lifted from one of Hitler's rants about Jews, and I'm pretty sure she would have known that and if she didn't then she should have done - and those who have come legitimately to this country from other parts of Europe are now accused of Jumping the queue.
Where there is harmony, let me sow discord more or less sums it up.
Can we rename this the Arlene Rant Thread after the DUP leader Arlene Foster? She is beyond awful. Selfish, duplicitous and destructive. She gives sectarianism a bad name. I cannot think of a pre-watershed term to describe her.
The only possible reason for keeping the name this thread has is that Treeza arranged the deal with the DUP.
Ah I don't know, Arlene is quite cuddly really. And you have to sympathise with someone whose blind pathological hatred means that she can't recognise a good thing when she sees it.
Instead of taking the route to life, she's firmly resolved to strap herself to a corpse.
The poor lovely. Imagine having to live with herself.
The form is to give translations for those who are neither scientists, nor chemists...
("The Republic has no need of scientists" - the judge overseeing the execution of Antoine Lavoisier)
DT
HH
Thanks - I do rather tend to assume that basic French is common knowledge, and I do need to be pulled up on that - and thanks for putting the context in too.
The quotation may actually be an invention rather than historical fact, but the attitude that it expresses seems to fit Treeza right down to her kitten heels.
Ah I don't know, Arlene is quite cuddly really. And you have to sympathise with someone whose blind pathological hatred means that she can't recognise a good thing when she sees it.
Instead of taking the route to life, she's firmly resolved to strap herself to a corpse.
The poor lovely. Imagine having to live with herself.
She's the kind of DUP leader who makes me, seriously, wish for the return of Rev Dr Ian Paisley.
The quotation may actually be an invention rather than historical fact, but the attitude that it expresses seems to fit Treeza right down to her kitten heels.
So there are not enough Torys that hate her enough to trigger a vote of no confidence. I see her as (for Terry Pratchette readers) Rincewind. She always survives some how. Does she have a pointy hat with Prime Minnister on it.?
Oh, they hate her right enough, a glance at the Daily Telegraph will show how little respect she really commands on her own back benches.
The Tory view seems to be that it's better to let her botch everything, that way her enemies can blame her when it all goes wrong, which it surely will do.
Really the most obvious solution is the the rUK to remain and England to exit - hard border round England and freight routed through the other nations. After all it was basically England that voted to leave.
The crazy thing is there are probably a lot of people in England who would go for that.
So there are not enough Torys that hate her enough to trigger a vote of no confidence. I see her as (for Terry Pratchette readers) Rincewind. She always survives some how. Does she have a pointy hat with Prime Minnister on it.?
I think she's more like Vetinari - everyone hates her, but not half as much as they hate the idea of one of their bitter rivals being in power.
So there are not enough Torys that hate her enough to trigger a vote of no confidence. I see her as (for Terry Pratchette readers) Rincewind. She always survives some how. Does she have a pointy hat with Prime Minnister on it.?
I think she's more like Vetinari - everyone hates her, but not half as much as they hate the idea of one of their bitter rivals being in power.
There's something in that. And the reason she has remained PM. However there is one key difference: Vetinari is competent.
There has been an interesting development this week with puss-filled sick-bag JRM. His incompetence had been noted, I suspect, being unable to garner the votes for a no-confidence, and the ERG shambles. And he has been considered a possible rival for PM.
So the problem is, as has been said, (and this is updating what I said earlier!), there there is nobody who wants to do the job who can command enough support from others.
Nobody wants any of the contenders in power. Including the incumbent.
FFS. I never thought I'd say it, but would it be possible to swap TM for the Chief Minister of Gibraltar?
As far as I can tell, that bloke has a tighter grip in reality than anyone in the British government.
Or Carwyn Jones or Nicola Sturgeon, of whom the same can be said.
But then, Mr Cheesy, you've set the bar pretty low. And what have the poor folk in Gibraltar done to you that you want them to be lumbered with Treeza?
Of course, in the real world, fisheries makes up less than one half of one percent of GDP, and book publishing is four times that. But no, fish, apparently.
Of course, in the real world, fisheries makes up less than one half of one percent of GDP, and book publishing is four times that. But no, fish, apparently.
I think it is a much bigger deal in parts of Scotland though.
On the other hand, one would think investment in processing might help get new markets.
And publishing will be a much bigger deal in parts of Scotland than fishing.
I've got nothing against fishing (other than it's often done poorly and with but a glance at sustainability), but giving fishing a veto in any deal (rather than, say, the whisky industry, which dwarfs the fishing sector) is daft.
The fishing is political ammunition. The Fishing community was one of the few in Scotland which were wholeheartedly behind Brexit, because they would get out of the CFP. And Mundell allegedly said he would resign if they didn't, because there were so few other groups for whom Brexit could be spun in a positive light. (And he hasn't.) So you can see that it is jam for the SNP, and, indeed, Scottish Labour.
I don't think anywhere in Scotland would be destroyed if the deal affected publishing. Whereas one port in Scotland lands more than the rest of the country put together.
Of course that might not in itself be a reason for making this such a big deal.
I don't think anywhere in Scotland would be destroyed if the deal affected publishing. Whereas one port in Scotland lands more than the rest of the country put together.
Of course that might not in itself be a reason for making this such a big deal.
Though staying in the CFP won't destroy the fishing industry, otherwise there wouldn't be a fishing industry (if it hadn't been noted, that port in Scotland lands it's catch while operating within the CFP). The claim (and, it's not much more as far as I can see) is that leaving the CFP would allow the industry to expand, or that within the CFP the industry will shrink and leaving will stop that. It doesn't seem that obvious to me - leaving the CFP will allow the government to further restrict "foreign boats" from fishing in "British waters" allowing more fish for British fishermen. Conversely, much of the British fishing fleet benefits from the CFP as it allows them to fish in waters close to other European nations, and leaving the CFP will restrict their ability to fish there, reducing fish for British fishermen. The balance between gains from closer fisheries against losses from further fisheries doesn't seem to obviously favour leaving the CFP. That's without also considering that much of the fish landed in the UK is sold elsewhere in the EU, and without "frictionless trade" that could be a problem, especially for a product that can't wait around at ports for days.
The balance between gains from closer fisheries against losses from further fisheries doesn't seem to obviously favour leaving the CFP.
“Supporters of EU membership point out that British fishermen can fish elsewhere in EU waters, but the reality is that Britain has – or at least should have – some of the most productive fishing grounds in Europe meaning there is huge demand for EU vessels to access Britain’s territorial waters, but limited value in British fishermen catching fish elsewhere in the EU. The statistics bear this out. In 2015, EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (raising £484 in million revenue) in UK waters, but UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes (£114 million revenue) in EU Member States’ waters.”
And, almost half the catch of UK boats is landed elsewhere in Europe (and a lot of those other European boats land their catch in the UK). Because the whole system is intertwined, so it's going to be an expensive and time consuming task to negotiate and implement a removal of the UK from the CFP. All for the sake of only a few more people than the number of young people taking advantage of Erasmus+ every year.
In other words, the UK fishing fleet accounted for fully two thirds of the fish caught in UK administered areas.
Other sectors (like banking) carry out something close to 80% of their services in other countries - mainly in the EU. And services are not covered by the WA.
I get that fishing fleets are more obvious than accountancy, but if I was worried about the economy, the latter would be getting far more attention than the former.
After all, what's a few hundred years of British sovereignty and the clearly and democratically expressed wishes of the inhabitants compared with helping Treeza stay in No. 10 for another couple of weeks?
After all, what's a few hundred years of British sovereignty and the clearly and democratically expressed wishes of the inhabitants compared with helping Treeza stay in No. 10 for another couple of weeks?
Not sure she had much choice.
I suppose the rationalisation is that Gibraltar isn't totally left in the cold but that they'd need to be a separate negotiation about it. Which, if nothing else, adds to the complications.
And now Treeza's again revived the long-exploded lie about an 'NHS dividend.'
She has no shame; but then, she apparently has no moral base whatever. Add to that her total lack of fashion awareness and it's no surprise I can't bear either to look at her or listen to her.
I have no remit to support Mrs. May. Yet I agree that whoever took on the role of Conservative Party leader/PM was doomed to failure and criticism. Had she been me I would have given up and resigned long ago. To me the overarching tragedy in this whole sordid Brexit affair is the way in which an attempt by Cameron to "see off" the Eurosceptic wing of his own party has led to a situation in which the whole country is likely to suffer. My personal view is (and always has been) that, once the vote had gone through, an All-party Group should have been set up to oversee Brexit, rather than allow the tensions of Government and pretensions of certain individuals to govern its progress.
I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?
Nobody has mentioned Margaret Thatcher. Treeza may be anything but strong and stable but Thatcher was the other way round. Brought the country to its knees because she wanted to. There has never been a worse PM.
Trying to work out a Cameron/pigs ear joke but failing.
But if Margaret Thatcher was the worst, then wouldn't you think that the subsequent PMs would reverse some of her policies? But they didn't, instead they added to them and made things worse. I include Tony Blair of course.
I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?
It doesn't matter. If it includes more than two Brextremists the group will be locked in an insoluble ideological battle that will mean it never gets anywhere. Hopefully letting the rest of us get on with our lives of being citizens of the European Union.
Comments
So who was Home Secretary when this outrage occurred?
But at least all the problems with the Windrush Generation were sorted out within the fortnight that she promised, weren't they? Just like the promise to get the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster properly rehoused, also within a fortnight. Does anyone know how many of them are still mouldering in hotels or B&Bs?
There's a kind of optimism which, when analysed, is even worse than simple lying, because it doesn't actually care whether what it promises is true or not.
There is a high level of rugged Toryism* in play, but personally I think we are a few steps from actual fascism.
But as I said, it is dangerous times.
* Which for me is in itself a form of evil, just not as extreme as fascism
Politicians lie. They seem to get away with it. I don't know why we let them. We shouldn't let this happen.
When it involves peoples lives like this (or with Brexit), we should make a fuss. And - more significantly, I think - the speaker and the house ethics committee should adress this.
They won't of course. Unethical behaviour among our politicians continues to be acceptable. For some reason.
Given her past history with the ghastly 'go home' vans referred to above and her racist dog-whistles when Sadiq Khan was the London mayoral candidate, really with her it's all about hating foreigners, isn't it?
Evil, that's what she is.
It wasn't so long ago that she said she didn't want lots of Indian programmers.
I don't know, I think I've lost the ability to detect evil. It certainly seems to be about power and expediency etc. But I'm having trouble deciding how to define that when it has such painful human effects.
It certainly feels like evil.
So that those who have a bit of experience of the world rather than being narrow 'little-Englanders' are Citizens of Nowhere - a phrase lifted from one of Hitler's rants about Jews, and I'm pretty sure she would have known that and if she didn't then she should have done - and those who have come legitimately to this country from other parts of Europe are now accused of Jumping the queue.
Where there is harmony, let me sow discord more or less sums it up.
And it will be far more difficult to replace them.
The only possible reason for keeping the name this thread has is that Treeza arranged the deal with the DUP.
Instead of taking the route to life, she's firmly resolved to strap herself to a corpse.
The poor lovely. Imagine having to live with herself.
Never mind, they're only experts, and no-one trusts them any more so we'll get along fine without them. La République n'a pas besoin de savants.
The form is to give translations for those who are neither scientists, nor chemists...
("The Republic has no need of scientists" - the judge overseeing the execution of Antoine Lavoisier)
DT
HH
Thanks - I do rather tend to assume that basic French is common knowledge, and I do need to be pulled up on that - and thanks for putting the context in too.
The quotation may actually be an invention rather than historical fact, but the attitude that it expresses seems to fit Treeza right down to her kitten heels.
She's the kind of DUP leader who makes me, seriously, wish for the return of Rev Dr Ian Paisley.
"We've had enough of experts" - Gove.
The Tory view seems to be that it's better to let her botch everything, that way her enemies can blame her when it all goes wrong, which it surely will do.
The crazy thing is there are probably a lot of people in England who would go for that.
I think she's more like Vetinari - everyone hates her, but not half as much as they hate the idea of one of their bitter rivals being in power.
There's something in that. And the reason she has remained PM. However there is one key difference: Vetinari is competent.
AFZ
So the problem is, as has been said, (and this is updating what I said earlier!), there there is nobody who wants to do the job who can command enough support from others.
Nobody wants any of the contenders in power. Including the incumbent.
As far as I can tell, that bloke has a tighter grip in reality than anyone in the British government.
Or Carwyn Jones or Nicola Sturgeon, of whom the same can be said.
But then, Mr Cheesy, you've set the bar pretty low. And what have the poor folk in Gibraltar done to you that you want them to be lumbered with Treeza?
I don't follow the SNP closely, but they seem trapped in a contradiction about the CM vs fisheries.
I think it is a much bigger deal in parts of Scotland though.
On the other hand, one would think investment in processing might help get new markets.
I've got nothing against fishing (other than it's often done poorly and with but a glance at sustainability), but giving fishing a veto in any deal (rather than, say, the whisky industry, which dwarfs the fishing sector) is daft.
Of course that might not in itself be a reason for making this such a big deal.
That said, it does seem to be an anomaly with regard to SNP policy.
Hint: Absofuckinglutely.
Where I live there was a history of 150 years of mining when they closed the mines, steelworks and other heavy industries in the 1970s and 1980s.
The upside is that the air is clear, the water is clean and people live longer. The downside is that nothing came to replace these jobs.
I don't think anyone wants to reopen the mines. But closing them in a hurry without thinking about the consequences had long-lasting impacts.
Though staying in the CFP won't destroy the fishing industry, otherwise there wouldn't be a fishing industry (if it hadn't been noted, that port in Scotland lands it's catch while operating within the CFP). The claim (and, it's not much more as far as I can see) is that leaving the CFP would allow the industry to expand, or that within the CFP the industry will shrink and leaving will stop that. It doesn't seem that obvious to me - leaving the CFP will allow the government to further restrict "foreign boats" from fishing in "British waters" allowing more fish for British fishermen. Conversely, much of the British fishing fleet benefits from the CFP as it allows them to fish in waters close to other European nations, and leaving the CFP will restrict their ability to fish there, reducing fish for British fishermen. The balance between gains from closer fisheries against losses from further fisheries doesn't seem to obviously favour leaving the CFP. That's without also considering that much of the fish landed in the UK is sold elsewhere in the EU, and without "frictionless trade" that could be a problem, especially for a product that can't wait around at ports for days.
“Supporters of EU membership point out that British fishermen can fish elsewhere in EU waters, but the reality is that Britain has – or at least should have – some of the most productive fishing grounds in Europe meaning there is huge demand for EU vessels to access Britain’s territorial waters, but limited value in British fishermen catching fish elsewhere in the EU. The statistics bear this out. In 2015, EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (raising £484 in million revenue) in UK waters, but UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes (£114 million revenue) in EU Member States’ waters.”
Source
Other sectors (like banking) carry out something close to 80% of their services in other countries - mainly in the EU. And services are not covered by the WA.
I get that fishing fleets are more obvious than accountancy, but if I was worried about the economy, the latter would be getting far more attention than the former.
After all, what's a few hundred years of British sovereignty and the clearly and democratically expressed wishes of the inhabitants compared with helping Treeza stay in No. 10 for another couple of weeks?
Not sure she had much choice.
I suppose the rationalisation is that Gibraltar isn't totally left in the cold but that they'd need to be a separate negotiation about it. Which, if nothing else, adds to the complications.
She has no shame; but then, she apparently has no moral base whatever. Add to that her total lack of fashion awareness and it's no surprise I can't bear either to look at her or listen to her.
I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?
But if Margaret Thatcher was the worst, then wouldn't you think that the subsequent PMs would reverse some of her policies? But they didn't, instead they added to them and made things worse. I include Tony Blair of course.