Labour probably can after the next GE. I'm suggesting that the Tories want to change things to be more global but it's not working out for UK consumers and so they've bottled it. Labour could change things though still but are likely to change things to keep EU-style rules in place for UK goods and UK goods intended for sale in the EU.
Food security can be paid for by the government. If food security is important (and it is important IMO) then government must pay producers to run an essential service rather than just shut them down from doing other things.
Isn’t this an unintentional indictment of her own record given that she had one of the highest positions of authority in an SNP-led devolved government?
The SNP are no different to any other party that has been in power for a long time, only in Scotland they seem to be unquestioned and that is the fault of opposition parties and their supporters
My suspicion is that the SNP success north of the border is the result of right-wing media failures south of the border. The SNP shouldn't enjoy the success they do but they're "the answer" to the south-of-the-border hate that no other Scottish party can deliver. Maybe if the Scottish Tories, Labour or Lib Dems, could actually give up on trying to preserve north-south ties and say "OK independence is something that needs to be looked at properly as a non-party matter, without asking those English politicians, we just need to do it ourselves".
The English but wants to claim to be British right-wing media tried and I guess failed to find a candidate they could support in the SNP race to replace Sturgeon so now they've decided that the SNP is a failure. No suggestion that the branches of the right-wing media have failed though.
Except that we closed all the safe legal routes for pretty much every other potential asylum seeker on the planet. Oh, and reduced the asylum processing speed in the UK so that basically no one gets processed. Instead they get sent to hotels where they get abused and threatened by far-right terrorists.
True but it can still have failed. I think it went wrong when they ditched May. Not that May was right or that it was wrong to ditch May. Just that the way they ditched May enabled the wrong things to happen.
I think May’s government was the start of the collapse, for sure. It became obvious that the Conservative Party was no longer interested in serious governance, and was caught up in exactly the kind of ideological warfare that they accuse the opposition of.
I think May's government was the last serious government we had. Maybe Sunak will remain sensible, it's too early to tell what he'll be like but with probably nearly 2 years before the next GE we'll have that time. We already know what Johnson was like, we know what will happen if he ever becomes PM again. Starmer is probably economically conservative, even if politically liberal.
This article is incredibly pro trade unions, striking, and against the way that people disparage strikes, the way the media present it, and how little we tolerate in terms of letting strikes be effective by linking up etc. The sarcasm he starts with is entirely to emphasise how he disagrees with the position, like in the quote you’ve taken.
You need to read it again, without skimming. He is being hyperbolic as a rhetorical figure. He is pro strikes and anti the media treatment of strikes and disruption.
Good examples? What do you mean. Good example of where the Tories have shown themselves to be vile or good examples of where they haven't been as vile as they could be?
The Tory party only cares about pensioners now. They're just trying to secure a few more votes to compensate for their loss as they die and newer pensioners are having to work longer before they can retire.
The stories possible, if the whips get hacked and a news outlet found that will accept that as the story rather than the potential benefits of having a back door into those whips if they keep the information away from the news but let the whips know it exists.
I've always voted values. However that doesn't mean I'm happy with the results. In some constituencies I've lived it it mean the party I voted for won but in others I've lived in it's meant victory for parties that either I was OKish with or fundamentally opposed to. In no vote I've taken part in could my vote have altered the outcome but maybe if more people had been swayed by arguments to change their vote then perhaps things could have been different but I don't see that as particularly likely.
A defendant is usually allowed to argue justification as a defence. Whether or not that will have an affect is a different matter. Personally I won't support religious justification as a defence or mitigation but I might accept environmental concerns if I believed them to be valid and relevant.
The whole point about non-Scottish newspaper "support" for various figures within the SNP is so they can either find support within the SNP and generate more sales in Scotland or because they're looking to find someone malleable within the SNP that they can use to influence SNP policy.
I don’t understand how this man has an audience. The guy who tougher sentences for weed users. I’d rather listen to Gary Glitter’s opinion on the matter.
He gives an excuse to right-wing autocrats that they're not like Hitler. It allows them to pretend that their hatred of Jews is completely different and not evil.
I think the issue is that he compared what some in the Tory party said to what was said in Germany during the 1930s. And the outrage is real because the Conservatives are trying to lure far right people to support them but without ever admitting that they would do such a thing. So they're furious that someone with such a high profile is telling people what they are doing.
He would be, but not for the reasons you're implying. He'd be spitting in her face because he was an actual racist and there's no way he would consider her British...
Churchill was very much in favour of the ECHR being set up. He was most probably a racist and may have objected to ECHR benefitting non-Europeans but he would still be supportive of the ECHR for Europeans.
He supported the setting up of the ECHR, despite even losing a General Election. My personal belief is that Churchill saw WWII as a battle between those that don't believe in inalienable rights and those that do (or at least sided with those that do, due to circumstance), for him the ECHR was definitive statement to show which side won. I could be wrong in my assessment of Churchill, that's not my personal view of the ECHR, although it is close.
He's a massive racist when it's continent to them, and simultaneously a massively ahead of his time progressive liberal who would have welcomed the third world flooding into Britain. He's whatever they need him to be in that moment.
I think his racist side presents a problem for many people but you are probably right about his views on immigration (from Europe and former Empire). I think it's clear that Churchill believed that people moving between countries is a way to reduce political tension between those countries.
If people don't admire these people, it's a damning indictment of the Welsh education system.
How are these people important to Welsh education?
You are the reason that “politics is broken”
Why?
Neither side has any chance of passing a constitutional amendment at the moment, surely. But there has to be a way to amend a constitution.
Labour probably can after the next GE. I'm suggesting that the Tories want to change things to be more global but it's not working out for UK consumers and so they've bottled it. Labour could change things though still but are likely to change things to keep EU-style rules in place for UK goods and UK goods intended for sale in the EU.
I was referring to the US, sorry.
I think my replay is still relevant though, the UK can learn some of the things that the US has done.
No, food security is a matter for us all.
Food security can be paid for by the government. If food security is important (and it is important IMO) then government must pay producers to run an essential service rather than just shut them down from doing other things.
Isn’t this an unintentional indictment of her own record given that she had one of the highest positions of authority in an SNP-led devolved government?
No, I think it's more a statement of intent to not follow some constitutional commitments should she get the top job.
The SNP are no different to any other party that has been in power for a long time, only in Scotland they seem to be unquestioned and that is the fault of opposition parties and their supporters
My suspicion is that the SNP success north of the border is the result of right-wing media failures south of the border. The SNP shouldn't enjoy the success they do but they're "the answer" to the south-of-the-border hate that no other Scottish party can deliver. Maybe if the Scottish Tories, Labour or Lib Dems, could actually give up on trying to preserve north-south ties and say "OK independence is something that needs to be looked at properly as a non-party matter, without asking those English politicians, we just need to do it ourselves".
The English but wants to claim to be British right-wing media tried and I guess failed to find a candidate they could support in the SNP race to replace Sturgeon so now they've decided that the SNP is a failure. No suggestion that the branches of the right-wing media have failed though.
We did at least open up a safe & legal route to offer Hong Kongers escape from the CCP's tyranny.
Except that we closed all the safe legal routes for pretty much every other potential asylum seeker on the planet. Oh, and reduced the asylum processing speed in the UK so that basically no one gets processed. Instead they get sent to hotels where they get abused and threatened by far-right terrorists.
Sunak handing his colleagues the rope rather than doing it himself.
Sunak making it a party issue so that he can claim to not interfere. He doesn't want to be blamed for the result, regardless of what it is.
Brexit has barely even started.
True but it can still have failed. I think it went wrong when they ditched May. Not that May was right or that it was wrong to ditch May. Just that the way they ditched May enabled the wrong things to happen.
I think May’s government was the start of the collapse, for sure. It became obvious that the Conservative Party was no longer interested in serious governance, and was caught up in exactly the kind of ideological warfare that they accuse the opposition of.
I think May's government was the last serious government we had. Maybe Sunak will remain sensible, it's too early to tell what he'll be like but with probably nearly 2 years before the next GE we'll have that time. We already know what Johnson was like, we know what will happen if he ever becomes PM again. Starmer is probably economically conservative, even if politically liberal.
Can he change constituency by moving to a new house?
To be honest I’m not sure why his opinion is particularly relevant enough to make the headline articles. He’s an actor.
I guess because he's a Northern Irish celebrity with a nearly world voice.
This article is incredibly pro trade unions, striking, and against the way that people disparage strikes, the way the media present it, and how little we tolerate in terms of letting strikes be effective by linking up etc. The sarcasm he starts with is entirely to emphasise how he disagrees with the position, like in the quote you’ve taken.
I didn't make it to the end on any of my reads but I read over half of it twice and couldn't conclude anything other that what I said.
You need to read it again, without skimming. He is being hyperbolic as a rhetorical figure. He is pro strikes and anti the media treatment of strikes and disruption.
If you want me to have a different opinion. You copy some of the parts that can have a positive interpretation.
What are some good examples?
Good examples? What do you mean. Good example of where the Tories have shown themselves to be vile or good examples of where they haven't been as vile as they could be?
No conservative supports freedom of speech. They just pretend they do so that they can gain enough power to curtail speech they dislike.
My thoughts exactly.
The BBC doesn't need saving from itself anywhere near as much as it needs saving from the Conservative Party
I’m wondering if this is going to look pretty bad actually.
The Tory party only cares about pensioners now. They're just trying to secure a few more votes to compensate for their loss as they die and newer pensioners are having to work longer before they can retire.
They should publish the whips' messages in that case.
The stories possible, if the whips get hacked and a news outlet found that will accept that as the story rather than the potential benefits of having a back door into those whips if they keep the information away from the news but let the whips know it exists.
I've always voted values. However that doesn't mean I'm happy with the results. In some constituencies I've lived it it mean the party I voted for won but in others I've lived in it's meant victory for parties that either I was OKish with or fundamentally opposed to. In no vote I've taken part in could my vote have altered the outcome but maybe if more people had been swayed by arguments to change their vote then perhaps things could have been different but I don't see that as particularly likely.
And religion is not a justification for committing crimes, either directly, to force others into adherence, or in motivation/influence.
A defendant is usually allowed to argue justification as a defence. Whether or not that will have an affect is a different matter. Personally I won't support religious justification as a defence or mitigation but I might accept environmental concerns if I believed them to be valid and relevant.
The whole point about non-Scottish newspaper "support" for various figures within the SNP is so they can either find support within the SNP and generate more sales in Scotland or because they're looking to find someone malleable within the SNP that they can use to influence SNP policy.
I don’t understand how this man has an audience. The guy who tougher sentences for weed users. I’d rather listen to Gary Glitter’s opinion on the matter.
He gives an excuse to right-wing autocrats that they're not like Hitler. It allows them to pretend that their hatred of Jews is completely different and not evil.
I think the issue is that he compared what some in the Tory party said to what was said in Germany during the 1930s. And the outrage is real because the Conservatives are trying to lure far right people to support them but without ever admitting that they would do such a thing. So they're furious that someone with such a high profile is telling people what they are doing.
The tories scream freedom of speech until someone disagrees with them and then cry till they get what they want, bunch of nonces
The Tories scream freedom of speech while they're not in power.
He would be, but not for the reasons you're implying. He'd be spitting in her face because he was an actual racist and there's no way he would consider her British...
Churchill was very much in favour of the ECHR being set up. He was most probably a racist and may have objected to ECHR benefitting non-Europeans but he would still be supportive of the ECHR for Europeans.
I agree, he would support the ECRH, for Europeans...
He supported the setting up of the ECHR, despite even losing a General Election. My personal belief is that Churchill saw WWII as a battle between those that don't believe in inalienable rights and those that do (or at least sided with those that do, due to circumstance), for him the ECHR was definitive statement to show which side won. I could be wrong in my assessment of Churchill, that's not my personal view of the ECHR, although it is close.
I thought Churchill was supposed to be the devil in UK subs?
He's a massive racist when it's continent to them, and simultaneously a massively ahead of his time progressive liberal who would have welcomed the third world flooding into Britain. He's whatever they need him to be in that moment.
I think his racist side presents a problem for many people but you are probably right about his views on immigration (from Europe and former Empire). I think it's clear that Churchill believed that people moving between countries is a way to reduce political tension between those countries.