Can't tell what's funnier, that he got smacked down again, or that the Telegraph's only defense of him is still that he is a bullshitter.
Printable View
Can't tell what's funnier, that he got smacked down again, or that the Telegraph's only defense of him is still that he is a bullshitter.
LOL no!Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Farage knows he won't get any seats which is why he isn't even bothering to stand himself. He's an attention whore and that's all this is about for him, he's lapping up the attention with this 'will he, won't he' bullshit.
As it happens I think the BXP not standing [which I expect] benefits Labour more than the Tories.
The final paragraph in that second article is horrific, I hope that never happens though I'm hopeful its BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The idea that anyone who feels strongly enough about leaving to vote BXP would vote for the party that just made a second referendum their policy as their second choice is bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Don't assume every voter is as logical or engaged with politics as we are.
Many leave supporting voters especially in the North and Midlands but not just there would never be seen dead voting for the Tories. Anyone who seriously follows politics already knows that the only way to guarantee Brexit is a Tory majority. So anyone who is prepared to vote Tory and wants Brexit already will be voting Boris.
There will be leave supporting traditionally Labour supporting voters who would never vote Tory but would vote BXP. If BXP don't stand then they could return home back to Labour.
See this example.
Twitter Link
Workington had a ton of Ukippers back when UKIP were a thing, and when UKIP died in 2017 on the face of it they went 50% 50% to Tories and Labour, giving the Tories 10% above their 2010 total of 30% (the LD vote also collapsed that year, and presumably they all went to Labour, so probably a lot more Ukippers went Tory than Labour). This was before Labour decided they were in favour of a second referendum.
So, the idea that people won't vote Tory here or change their allegiance from Labour is wrong. We have a ~60% leave area voting ~60% leave parties, no reason to think those Brexit party guys are going to all go directly back to Labour. I mean, maybe some of them will but it's not going to overturn that 9% lead the Tory candidate has.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIcnFKuXYAAKxAh.jpg:large
Roh Rwoh, looks like people are fired up about Brexit in the year of our Lord 2019.
Did I say nobody would go Tories? Yes when UKIP died and split to both Tories and Labour - what I am suggesting is that in 2019 if BXP stands because of Brexit those who would be inclined to vote for the Tories may well go directly there, but those against the Tories may go BXP instead of Labour. If BXP stands down then those Labour/UKIP/Labour/BXP voters may return home to Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Glad to see Immigration down to just 5%
Lmao immigration is one of the most important issues in brexit you numpty.
Immigration is not Brexit though and Brexit will do nothing to stop migration from non-EU nations which has been getting liberalised since Boris and Patel took over as they both argued for during the referendum campaign.
This is a cheeky bit of fun from a 15 year old kid: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/102720...ts-terrorists/
Immigration is not Brexit though and Brexit will do nothing to stop migration from non-EU nations which has been getting liberalised since Boris and Patel took over as they both argued for during the referendum campaign.
This is a cheeky bit of fun from a 15 year old kid: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/102720...ts-terrorists/
That's verging on newspeak and outright lying, given that brexit will as a matter of fact end freedom of movement for a very large group of likely immigrants—so it is objectively a restriction on immigration—and there's no planned lowering of the minimum income threshold for prospective migrants.
It will take back control over half the migrants who come here yes from 7% of the global population, it has no impact on 93% of the global population though - whether from the Middle East, Far East, Africa, North or South America or Oceania.
The minimum income threshold is nothing special for skilled migrants and is quite comparable to other nations. Not many countries seek to import unskilled minimum wage migrants.
The 7% and 93% figures are just simplistic global population breakdowns and do not take into account what actually matters in migratory terms; ie things like geographic proximity, ease of movement and relative economic disparity.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It is as silly as quoting numbers that prove that most immigrants to London are from the UK. But this is how Brexitards work; they faithfully follow the talking points of their leaders. Randblade hasn’t had an idea of his own in well over a decade. The amazing thing is that he constantly changes his mind and that he doesn’t seem to notice he’s defending something diametrically opposed to what he was defending just as fiercely the day before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Twitter Link
Well they aren't Little Englanders anyway
Lol: https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-05/...says-watchdog/
"Let's spend that money on the NHS instead!" :)
You can understand how they elected habitual liar Boris Johnson to lead them when you realize they can't not lie:
Twitter Link
A trick Labour and Momentum have been using for years.
You don't need to edit videos to see how absurd "we will negotiate a great new deal then campaign against it" is as a policy.
And, yet, that's precisely what they did—and then they continued to lie about it. Embarrassing. Almost as Embarrassing as being held to the same standards as Momentum :haha :
Who's lying? Its a video of Starmer flailing about trying to defend the indefensible, with an image of him at the end to demonstrate just how ludicrous and farcical his message of 'we will negotiate a deal then campaign against it' truly is.
Yes its been edited which is kind of obvious but the words haven't changed at all and other parties do it and the gloves are off.
There is no difference now between Momentum and Labour, they have taken over the Labour party wholesale. Its like trying to distinguish between the GOP and Tea Party.
Your willingness to defend lies is just getting boring now. The tweet claims that the video shows "Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit Minister can't or won't answer a simple question about Labour's position on Brexit". In reality, Starmer did answer the question—immediately. You may find the answer unsatisfactory, but the tweet—taken together with the edited video—is a lie. Granted, the current standard for Tories is to lie more brazenly—see eg. Johnson's lie about Turkey, his lie about Arcuri etc—but this is still pretty fucked up.
Now in the whataboutism stage of Trumpism.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
He replied in the original video he didn't answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I understood even in the edited version what his answer was.
BXP caved in and going for a "unilateral leave alliance" :haha:
In other words they're standing down against any Tory MPs and only standing against Remainer Parties MPs.
Christ Farage really is a snivelling little weasel isn't he.
Twitter Link
Gifting the Conservatives the election is somewhat an overstatement though.
It will help defend a handful of South West seats versus the Lib Dems but besides that makes negligible difference.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJC4XlWX...jpg&name=large
The pandering continues.
Pandering? That's not pandering, on the big news on that front page Liverpool did take a giant stride towards the title. Even if it was at Anfield beating the defending champions and main rivals is a fantastic result and even if it is only November being 8 points clear of Leicester and 9 points clear of City was a great result. We can't count our chickens yet, after past disappointments we know not to presume anything and need to push on until the end of the season.
As for the controversy its bollocks. The ball hit Silva's arm before it hit Trent Alexander Arnold.
I understand you think you're being funny, but you're just being a fuckwit.
I suggested a handful of Lib Dem seats, 5 is top end of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Half a dozen SNP seats difference is beyond what I would have thought. Not sure how many EC puts us down to, I would have thought we'd keep ~5 SCON seats before this, keeping 11 seems implausible. Then again SNP on 42 is below my expectations either way, we'll see.
Get over yourself sourpuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I have a better idea: don't be a cretin who gobbles up a govt's cynical move to protect perpetrators from accountability and deny justice to people in NI in order get a few more votes. I mean, we know about your feelings about people with Irish accents, but just try to dial down the xenophobia a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I have no qualms about people with Irish accents and the government is proposing rectifying an anomoly in the law not denying justice. But why let facts get in the way of your ranting?
What utter BS. The UK is treaty-bound, under the ECHR, to thoroughly investigate and punish crimes committed by representatives of the state--such as the ones committed during the Troubles. Altering the HRA in this manner will cause a direct conflict with the UK's treaty obligations--the same obligations the Act is intended to enshrine in domestic UK law--and/or deny justice & closure to those affected by the crimes being investigated.
No it won't. You misunderstood the proposal.