• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

British politics

Page 82 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
My goodness. I never intended to say that the EU membership caused high or low unemployment.

I had read an article that mentioned one of the factors or actually said one of the reasons for brexit yes was unemployment in southern EU countries and the perception it dragged the UK down.

How everyone came along to try and put me down is how people get treated for an opinion that is not along the lines of this echo chamber here.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will help


Some people might have to concentrate and get over superficial left/right arguments
I usually don't read demo socialist radical publications like this rag that Sunkara started. Plus I have it out for people who are educated at George Washington.
 
I usually don't read demo socialist radical publications like this rag that Sunkara started. Plus I have it out for people who are educated at George Washington.
No one has it out for you, but I think there’s a general sense that you are very much a product of certain echo chambers. To the extent that you would rather caricature and polarize situations rather than discuss their actual details.

Never mind the paranoia.
 
I've spent some time on twitter recently, infiltrating Brexiteer timelines with seemingly supportive tweets, but with a hidden subversive meaning. If you wrap the text in plenty of union jack flag emojis they dont seem to notice.

What has struck me is the rhetorical elision between Brexit and Trump. The rejection of MSM, the blind flag-waving, fetishisation of the military and anachronistic revisionism.

I never really understood that at the heart of Brexit is one big conspiracy theory, and that as you pick away the layers, eventually you arrive at the core idea that the EU is just a German plot to take control of Europe.

It really is that facile.
 
If I understand BoJo's deal correctly, the Irish border problem is solved by having a hard border, but not calling it that.

So will it pass? And if not...?
Yeah, hard border between the mainland and soft border in Ireland as far as I understand, which is exactly what the DUP didn't want when Theresa May suggested it. It'll accelerate support for the SNP and independence in Scotland too.


Hard to tell if it'll pass, but I think it's unlikely. The Tories don't have a majority, Johnson sacked a load of MPs to make their deficit bigger, the DUP are voting against it, Labour are being whipped against it unless there is a second referendum added and the Liberals, SNP, Funny Tinge etc. aren't going to vote for it. He'd need the MPs he sacked and a load of Labour MPs in Brexit constituencies to vote for it. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely.
 
Unbelievable first week of the election. Rees Mogg makes a staggering comment on Grenfell, Bridgen even more staggeringly defends it in the worst of ways, a candidate quits for sexual harassment and they have to apologise/deny/excuse a terribly doctored video. For Labour too, just today there were 2 candidates in anti-Semitism storms. The Lib Dems meanwhile have started on the wrong foot, losing in the polls and not helped by getting ignored by most TV companies for debates, not to mention the really terrible and quite manipulativebar graphs finally getting attention.

Just want to add something about Rees Mogg: whatever he may have meant from his comment, there is no way to spin it positively at all (which explains the leading tories' silence of it). Either, like Bridgen, you argue that Rees Mogg and the Tories are smarter than the average working class person, which really doesn't need to be expanded in any further; or, you are telling people to ignore the fire service and authority, which is very un-conservative but also in this case a demonstration of how out of touch and insular politicians are. The rule makes sense: it's used all over England in high tower blocks and I'm fairly sure in most of the developed world. But the stay put rule relies on one key assumption: that houses are built properly. That fire doors to prevent smoke entering for 30 minutes are present, that sprinklers are functioning, that the building isn't covered in what amounted to pretty much petrol infused kindling. It's as if the Tories have looked at Grenfell and the lesson they've taken from it isnt that housing regs needed to be tighter of that cost cutting due to lack of funds isn't an excuse for ignoring people's safety, but that the Fire Service, the same fire service which, you know, is universally liked, knowledgeable in the field and save people's lives daily, are in the wrong. Says it all really.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS