blandy

I'm not sure that either have actually quite grasped the concept of reality just yet. Fantasy, yes. Denial, yes. Delusion, sure. But reality?

It’s all over the pages of Murdochs Sunday Times, the Heil and others. I call your point a miss. I’m actually surprised because I’d have expected you to be right. The media, even the Tory media can see the way the wind is blowing.

He’s a little bit N’golo Kante in some of his play and energy. Simply marvellous

Villa tweeted wednesday, Simon. Ropy train internet stops me posting it

Yeah, totally, IMO. Labour’s not doing that, though, they’re falling into sound bites.

Yes. Exactly. I think/hope that was implicit in my post. Don’t ban asking awkward questions because some parts of society don’t agree with them. I happen to agree as an individual with one questions underlying take compared to another’s, but don’t ban or block people from asking.

Maybe so. Doesn’t change any facts, though. The world we live in is what it is. Yes sign our petitions, lobby our MPs, but still, our pensions are affected by, in this case, decisions of government.

I don't see a problem with that question. Clearly it's pejorative from the audience member, but there's two or three things that make it OK as follows: Firstly, politicians should be exposed to the public, all types, asking questions in their own language. If they're not, nothing will get understood, explained, answered, refuted or whatever. Secondly, the programme would need to ensure that over time balance is maintained by allowing other party's policies to also be interrogated in the same style. Thirdly, there's an element of truth in the question - it's not completely based on a false premise (which would make it invalid/unfair). The reason I say that is because Labour has a policy, or has in the past aired a desire in their manifesto to nationalise e.g. Water. Now currently the Water companies have shareholders including pension funds. Pensions of "ordinary people" are invested in and therefore own part of the water industry. If Labour nationalises Water, then either they pay market value, which renders the point "steal property" as wrong - and Labour could promise to pay the market rate, and explain why nationalisation is in their view a good idea, or they could explain why they will pay below the market rate, thus taking money out of people's pensions "stealing it" in effect. You're a I dunno, shop-keeper or factory worker with a pension you contribute to, whose money is invested in Water shares (amongst others) a drop in value of those shares takes your pension from (say) £12 grand a year to £10 grand a year - Labour's just taken 2 grand a year from a factory worker. Not a good look.

REMs early label, and a few other bands of that ilk. Some good stuff.

But you said So if People living in the UK can vote in a UK referendum, then my logic, from what you said was People living in Scotland can vote in a Scottish referendum

If they live in Scotland, then why not?

Yeah, the veto thing. Sovereignty of nation states. Nasty EU imposing things on countries they don’t want...Hold on, something doesn’t add up.

Yeah, I agree pretty much with that. The current rules of the CAP as I understand it don’t allow some of that, but the sentiment I share, really. Like Bick’s says it’s a bit confused in places. But we’ve wandered away from the EU discussion anyway.

This completely. I mean I get from the BBC perspective that until the Brexit, these areas were basically ignored by the national news, unless something else closed down, or someone did a murder or whatever - bad news, essentially. But repeated visits to ask what a subset of people - those on the streets or pubs or shops in the middle of the day - think about politics or Brexit just reveals nothing other than they don't like politicians and they want their Brexit, without understanding that it won't make their lives better. It would be similar if they went to the stockbroker belt - contempt for politicians, they want to remain and, er.... The whole approach is pretty brain dead.

Right, let's try and get a few things clearer. Me personally, I'm not in favour of subsidising grouse shooting, or of grouse shooting at all, or Raptor persecution, or habitat destruction or the way sheep are allowed to keep hills and moors devoid of more than scrubby shrubbery. But. When you said I took that to be implying that you believe the tories instead of spending money on food for people were instead giving it to millionaire grouse murderers. That, if I understand you rightly is completely untrue. The CAP money for agricultural subsidies comes from the EU and Brussels (though from us initially) and is only for agricultural subsidies, it legally can't be given to homeless folk or the elderly or disabled or...etc. The CAP determines what the money is for, and some is directly passed to farmers etc. decided by the EU and some is passed on after they apply that they meet specific criteria for land usage or management, set by the parts of the UK, but within the terms of the CAP's remit to (they reckon) promote beneficial environmental and sustainable land use and wotnot. It's not the vile tories fault in this instance that money is going to people who who are eligible for it and apply for it. The CAP is (in part) bobbins, because countries like France are hugely resistant (as they get the most wedge from it) to changing it.

No that's not what I think. Full Fact covers this.

I dunno, Chris. I think he's changed quite a bit - not fundamentally, but he's got better (less bad) at the whole speaking business - the PMQs part and all that. He's still no great shakes at it. I still percieve him as not competent and holding some views, which whether you want to call them extremist or not, are not (IMO) compatible with being PM. I completely agree Johnson is utterly appalling and that in a comparison with Corbyn, Corbyn comes out as less bad. But I don't think that "not being as appalling as Boris Johnson" is any kind of recommendation really. I can't see, whatever the various oppo parties think, enough tories or former tories agreeing to support a temporary Corbyn PM thing for the maths to work. He's had some good moments recently, but he still also has just as many, if not more stinkers.

Yeah, that's fair comment. I don't agree with all of it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Whatever happens - from leaving imminently, to not leaving after a referendum, it's going to carry on for a decade or so - either trying to recover all the deals that would need to be made, or through people opposed to "stopping brexit" carrying on Faraging. SO if we leave, like you say it will be trying to get deals or rejoin later, and if we remain people determined to carry on campaigning for leave.

Yeah, it is, as I understand it (could be wrong) This is the bit where the rich folk get their dosh from.

That bit there. That's the problem. I'm not wholly assured of the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and co. Call me a cynic, but I detect that he might not be a wholly upstanding sort of chap. I wonder whether his association with the likes of Bannon and the US alt right might not reveal a rather less benign sort of nature, more interested in grabbing than giving. Probably just me though...

It doesn't. A small number of developed African countries are not included, but they're not the undeveloped ones with the "starvation"

the CAP is dreadful. No argument there. As far as I'm aware, the Government (tories) promised to carry on subsidising for the first few years after Brexit - so no change initially. The question then comes to what will happen after that time, and who would you trust to implement something better? Obviously you've got prominent tories, Daily Mail owners/Ex -editors - that type who benefit hugely from EU subsidies for their piles and estates. Are these sorts of folk likely to push for the necessary reform? I rather think not. I suppose you could make an argument that Green party type policies bringing in better environmental protection and associating grants with protection might catch on to the extent that a future government might introduce them. I suppose you could make the argument that a COrbynite type future governement might decide to prioritise similar steps, rather than focus on NHS, Schools, poverty and so on, but realistically I'm not confident that Labour is serious about the environment and farming subsidies - I think they are snaffling Green ideas to try and neutralise votes being lost to the Green party and Lib Dems because of their (Labour's) Brexit "policy". So basically, the theory that "we could do better" than the CAP is right. The likelihood is that our own inadequate government would not actually do so. And that's before you get into the damage that Brexit would do to the farmers through loss of markets, cheaper imports, delays in transportation, etc. (as per Yellowhammer revelations)

In the way people and parliament are behaving, yes, that's probably right. But there are different logical arguments or paths which could be followed or argued, rather than just one, and that doesn't help. IF there was only one path that is credible, or has credible arguments (leaving aside personal preferences) then it would be a lot easier. There is a logic to the Brexiter argument that parliament agreed to hold a referendum, that parliament agreed and promised to abide by the result, that Labour and Tory manifestos promised to do a Brexit deal and so we need to leave with May's deal, because that's what was negotiated via the process with the EU. There is a logic to say that detailed comprehensive analysis undertaken by Government shows that Brexit will be very harmful to the nation, and that parliament therefore needs to prevent harm to the nation. Particularly so when the original vote was tainted with rule breaking and lies to the extent that had it been a legally binding referendum rather than an advisory one, it would have been declared void. There is a logic to say that now we have much more information on the reality of what Brexit entails, people should be asked to confirm "this is what we want (or no, we don't want that)" via a referendum. There is an argument to say that parliament is so f***ed and unlikely to get unf***ed any time soon, that there should be an election. There is absolutely no logical argument to say there should be a no deal Brexit. Anyway, all these conflicting logics, appallingly dire governemnt, weak opposition, timid backbenchers (in the main) have led to a complete clusterpork.

I think that was his plan. It’s still his best way out, but like everything else he puts his hand to, he’s probably messed that up, but give it a week and things may change again.