Quite! A U-turn can be fine, as long as it is executed for the correct reasons.We can’t let things like facts get in the way of the Tabloid glee at screaming about U-Turns. It’s almost like they want us to be ruled by pig headed opinionated oafs
Quite! A U-turn can be fine, as long as it is executed for the correct reasons.We can’t let things like facts get in the way of the Tabloid glee at screaming about U-Turns. It’s almost like they want us to be ruled by pig headed opinionated oafs
No, firstly because accepting the result (in the sense of not complaining about it) is betraying your principles, and secondly (just like the Brexit referendum, as it happens) because the actual result is more nuanced than that.
Greg Hands could at least get his facts right. The 211 would be unaffected and the 148 extended in its scope! (The tiny piece of route between Shepherds Bush Green and White City Shopping Centre would be withdrawn though.)
Why was Johnson sniffing so much in his interview yesterday? Guess it was bad hayfever or a summer cold
Why was Johnson sniffing so much in his interview yesterday? Guess it was bad hayfever or a summer cold
Accepting the result of a vote which you lost is an absolutely fundamental principle of democracy, although not always observed, as some politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have demonstrated.
I do wonder how Sir Keir Starmer if in the position of Prime Minister would have handled the matter of illegal immigration mentioned above, especially with regards to the criminal gangs who profit from the suffering of the said immigrants.However, a complete failure to deal with (especially illegal) immigration and law and order are obvious weak points.
I posted last night. Reckon the oaf had spent the two hours bricking it knowing that for once he can’t bulldoze his way through something.Why was Johnson sniffing so much in his interview yesterday? Guess it was bad hayfever or a summer cold
Wasn't the Conservative party considering pushing them back into the sea?I do wonder how Sir Keir Starmer if in the position of Prime Minister would have handled the matter of illegal immigration mentioned above, especially with regards to the criminal gangs who profit from the suffering of the said immigrants.
No, I think it was to push them over to Ruanda.Wasn't the Conservative party considering pushing them back into the sea?
You learn something new every day on this website as I was unaware that the said personage not only had bricklaying skills, but also the ability to drive a bulldozer.I posted last night. Reckon the oaf had spent the two hours bricking it knowing that for once he can’t bulldoze his way through something.
You learn something new every day on this website as I was unaware that the said personage not only had bricklaying skills, but also the ability to drive a bulldozer.
Wasn't it a wall of police cadets?Didn’t he drive a JCB through a wall of polystyrene (or similar) blocks during the election campaign?
How else is he going to build all these ‘new’ hospitals?You learn something new every day on this website as I was unaware that the said personage not only had bricklaying skills, but also the ability to drive a bulldozer.
First of all, how many are illegal immigrants, and how many are asylum seekers, which are different groups entirely? What we have to remember is if they're embarking on a dangerous journey like that across the channel and putting their lives into the hands of these gangs, things must be very bad in their homeland for them to consider such a crossing a risk worth taking (one's home country being ravaged by war would fit this).I do wonder how Sir Keir Starmer if in the position of Prime Minister would have handled the matter of illegal immigration mentioned above, especially with regards to the criminal gangs who profit from the suffering of the said immigrants.
I was discussing the matter this morning with a neighbour with still a weird sense of humour at the age of 83 and his response was......
"I do wonder if Corbyn was in charge, his plan would be to nationalise the people smuggling gangs and to ensure that the RMT union (M in that stands for maritime) would ensure that they abided by the decision by setting up picket lines all across the French beaches and did not allow cross-channel immigrant craft to travel on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays".
These people are in the country of France, a country that had aims of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in its revolution at the end of the 18th century. Do these now no longer apply? Do I understand your view that having reached France, asylum seekers are not safe there?First of all, how many are illegal immigrants, and how many are asylum seekers, which are different groups entirely? What we have to remember is if they're embarking on a dangerous journey like that across the channel and putting their lives into the hands of these gangs, things must be very bad in their homeland for them to consider such a crossing a risk worth taking (one's home country being ravaged by war would fit this).
Accepting the result of a vote which you lost is an absolutely fundamental principle of democracy, although not always observed, as some politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have demonstrated.

Well, he did seem quite keen that we should "draw lines" under the whole thing, perhaps that that one come from Gove?He seemed quite bouncy. I guess those hayfever drugs were pretty good.
Or they were wiser than her and were keeping their heads down until it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
I may be old-fashioned (now, saying that is a sign of getting old), but my feeling is that an MP’s loyalty should be to his or her constituents and the country, or even to the party who they think will serve those best, but not to one individual. I suspect that there will be rolling in the aisles after that statement.
These people are in the country of France, a country that had aims of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in its revolution at the end of the 18th century. Do these now no longer apply? Do I understand your view that having reached France, asylum seekers are not safe there?
Indeed. Consistent with the mindset of a Tory MP that, upon hedging his bets, has decided that backing Big Dog isn't such a good idea after all.Agreed. To my mind, Douglas Ross's position has been perfectly consistent.
He's a muppet (also my MP). He's a Tory. I'll look for the worst in anyone who flip-flops between pretending to support the party leadership and pretending to support their constituents. MPs are suppose to look after interests of all their constituents once elected, and oor Dougie can't work out whether he's more inclined to support those in Moray who voted for him, those in the Highland electoral region who voted for him, or if he prefers being a pretender to the First Minister position.But of course he's a Tory MP, and it seems that in the minds of some people that's sufficient justification to gratuitously look for the worst possible interpretation of everything he does - even if what he's doing is perfectly reasonable and consistent![]()
There is no obligation for someone to claim asylum in the first 'safe' country that they pass through. If, for example, someone has family in the UK then it is right and proper for them to make their asylum claim to the UK. Which is a hell of a lot easier to do if they're already here.These people are in the country of France, a country that had aims of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in its revolution at the end of the 18th century. Do these now no longer apply? Do I understand your view that having reached France, asylum seekers are not safe there?
My grasp of French is modest, but I was able to read 'Arabs go home' in the local graffiti.These people are in the country of France, a country that had aims of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in its revolution at the end of the 18th century. Do these now no longer apply? Do I understand your view that having reached France, asylum seekers are not safe there?
Probably never.We now have an answer, namely 6th June 2022, when 148 of Johnson's own MPs voted that they have no confidence in him.
Perhaps there is some validity in now asking the question "When will the Johnson and his ever decreasing band of sycophants recognise that their behaviour is seriously damaging the Tory Party?"
So, maybe, the answer to where it went wrong for the Tories was when they (and the Whigs/ Liberals) drew lines across maps ignoring the local population not thinking what might happen a few hundred years later?
My grasp of French is modest, but I was able to read 'Arabs go home' in the local graffiti.