Brexit

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 2 Dec - 12:16

First topic message reminder :

Funniest thing to happen in years. Have been following the craziness on the FT. Despite the implications if our current crop of retards manage to push it through I can't remember when I've read the news everyday without fail and learned something new. What does everyone think of the possibility that we stay in the single market, retain freedom of movement. Pay into the EU coffers and lose our vote ??

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed 7 Dec - 17:05

Pr4wn wrote:Climate change scam. You're serious?

Yes.

by **Pr4wn** Wed 7 Dec - 17:12

Lol, maybe one for another thread then. Should be a laugh.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 17:19

Pr4wn wrote:No, you've just misunderstood me. There's no argument, chum. In terms of pure volume, of course the older generations had the highest numbers for leave. That's a given and hardly a point that needs to be made. My point was that, even given their large numbers, remain were expected to still win comfortably. The shock was that the poorer areas of Britain voted in such large numbers to leave the EU. Look at the numbers from Hull, for example.

I wasn't arguing against the fact that old people voted for leave in the largest absolute and proportional numbers. That was blindingly obvious.

You were blaming it on the poor and uneducated......Chum.. Wink

by **Pr4wn** Wed 7 Dec - 17:22

There's no blame... erm... chum. It was an explanation. There's no doubt that uneducated poor people turned out in larger numbers in favour of leave than were anticipated.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 17:32

Pr4wn wrote:There's no blame... erm... chum. It was an explanation. There's no doubt that uneducated poor people turned out in larger numbers in favour of leave than were anticipated.

Don't like the word "Poor"...............But the strugglers certainly voted out in numbers we'll agree on that whatever the reasons and some will have been unsavoury.....

Patronising to stereotype them all as too thick to see the bigger picture though....You don't have to be struggling or uneducated to be thick..

Education doesn't always equal more intelligence......Just means you're better educated......

Only have to look at Bernie Madoff investors to see that..

Hope you're well and enjoying Canada ????.....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 17:52

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Fair enough.......You're right to point out that many more people in other sections may have voted...

But the percentages point to a trend........The trend is that the older you are the more anti-Europe you are.....

Yes more younger people may have voted out but more voted in....

Not sure what you had in your wallet made much difference...Wouldn't say the 50-65+ classes are the most desperate in Society..

But what do I know ???......I'm just a simple boy from a backwater town...I've only just learned to use a knife and fork Wink

..

by **Pr4wn** Wed 7 Dec - 18:01

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:There's no blame... erm... chum. It was an explanation. There's no doubt that uneducated poor people turned out in larger numbers in favour of leave than were anticipated.

Don't like the word "Poor"...............But the strugglers certainly voted out in numbers we'll agree on that whatever the reasons and some will have been unsavoury.....

Patronising to stereotype them all as too thick to see the bigger picture though....You don't have to be struggling or uneducated to be thick..

Education doesn't always equal more intelligence......Just means you're better educated......

Only have to look at Bernie Madoff investors to see that..

Hope you're well and enjoying Canada ????.....

Poor is a word with a meaning, whether you like it or not, mate. I never called anyone thick. But, of the younger generations, the less educated voted in larger numbers for Brexit. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 18:11

The question is why pick on a section which voted in large numbers to remain..

Whilst leaving so called better educated... older sections that voted out in bigger percentages alone ??..

If you're rich and voted out....You disagree with them like I do...

If you're poor and uneducated....You are too desperate to grasp facts..

That is your argument..............and it is cheap.....My old friend.

Cheap...

by **Pr4wn** Wed 7 Dec - 18:14

Sigh.

Because it was unexpected. As I've explained.

But thanks for telling me what my argument was while completely failing to understand it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 18:20

Pr4wn wrote:Sigh.

Because it was unexpected. As I've explained.

But thanks for telling me what my argument was while completely failing to understand it.

Why not chuck a smiley in as well.

You play hit and run when tested...Makes it hard to debate.

Moving on..

In conclusion old people voted out in higher numbers..Pick on them

by Volcanicash Wed 7 Dec - 18:41

I think its most definitely a possibility, I voted leave but thought that even with a leave win, you will still have to overcome a couple of hurdles, such as the pro eu side having a majority in the parliament, the lords, the judiciary, the civil service and the media, and that if leave won it will be dragged out and diluted, if they can't give us the option to vote again.

I'm still convinced about this, not least with the recent court proceedings, I do like David Davis but the fact is with a Pm who only won due to the torys candidates imploding, and positioning and portraying herself as reluctant remainer, yet said and did nothing presiding over record numbers of net migration, I don't think its unreasonable to think this.

I also don't believe in hard or soft brexit, just leaving the eu, to me that means simply leaving, whether thats joining efta,(which I think is entirely reasonable, and flexible enough to control immigration) wto or anything else, thats down to the government, as long as we are out of jurisdiction of the eu courts, and paliamentry institutions I will be happy.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 7 Dec - 18:49

I'm not sure it is possible to ever control immigration....

Anybody who voted on those terms must be a serious optimist.....

Think the £8 billion lie about the NHS was a bigger factor.....Hence I'd like a re-run...

I don't think many people understood the implications of brexit.....But I'm not sure you have to be poor and uneducated to misunderstand it.. ....As it was so poorly argued..

Scandalously poorly..

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 8 Dec - 9:17

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

by dyrewolfe Thu 8 Dec - 12:59

Volcanicash wrote:I think its most definitely a possibility, I voted leave but thought that even with a leave win, you will still have to overcome a couple of hurdles, such as the pro eu side having a majority in the parliament, the lords, the judiciary, the civil service and the media, and that if leave won it will be dragged out and diluted, if they can't give us the option to vote again.

I'm still convinced about this, not least with the recent court proceedings, I do like David Davis but the fact is with a Pm who only won due to the torys candidates imploding, and positioning and portraying herself as reluctant remainer, yet said and did nothing presiding over record numbers of net migration, I don't think its unreasonable to think this.

I also don't believe in hard or soft brexit, just leaving the eu, to me that means simply leaving, whether thats joining efta,(which I think is entirely reasonable, and flexible enough to control immigration) wto or anything else, thats down to the government, as long as we are out of jurisdiction of the eu courts, and paliamentry institutions I will be happy.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

Hear hear. clap

The longer this goes on the more fearful I am that what we will eventually end up with are some minor amendments to our terms of membership.

The EU have already said they are going to play hardball and that we won't be able to "cherry pick" our terms of leaving, so Leave will have to mean Leave...as in a full political, economic and legal separation. I think the government may have been able to pull this off, if not for the legal challenge over their use of Royal Prerogative, by the Remainers.

Sadly there are just too many people in positions of power, with vested interests in the UK remaining part of the EU. So, as you mentioned, the process will be dragged out as long as possible and eventually diluted into something resembling what David Cameron managed.

by dyrewolfe Thu 8 Dec - 13:11

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not sure it is possible to ever control immigration....

Anybody who voted on those terms must be a serious optimist.....

Think the £8 billion lie about the NHS was a bigger factor.....Hence I'd like a re-run...

I don't think many people understood the implications of brexit.....But I'm not sure you have to be poor and uneducated to misunderstand it.. ....As it was so poorly argued..

Scandalously poorly..

Why is it not possible to control immigration?

Surely having a policy whereby people wishing to enter the country are vetted for appropriate skills, criminal records etc. is better than the current freedom of movement system, where as long as you have an EU passport, you can go anywhere you like?

Doesn't Canada have a policy whereby you are only allowed to stay if you have secured long-term employment?

While I don't doubt it will be very difficult to get a grip on this problem, leaving the EU at least gives us a better chance of doing so, if we can dictate our own border controls.

The UK also needs to, more than most, as we are already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the UK's net migration figures have shot up massively over the last 15 years or so:

1990-1995 - 205,000
1995-2000 - 499,000
2000-2005 - 968,000
2005-2010 - 1,524,000
2010-2015 - 900,000

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/net-number-migrants-country-1950-2015-five-year-intervals?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true

France, by way of comparison, hasn't seen nearly the same increase. Spain, Italy and Germany have seen spikes in their figures recently, but not the same kind of sustained increase that the UK has experienced.

I never believed for a moment that the £350 million a week membership fee would go the NHS. It seemed very opportunistic to me at the time, but if that money ends up staying in the UK economy and can be put to good use, thats fine by me.

Do agree with your last comment, that the level of debate was shockingly bad, never rising above the level of playground arguments (on both sides).

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 8 Dec - 13:53

Dyre, have you ever looked at the EU law on freedom of movement?

by SecretFly Thu 8 Dec - 15:21

How much are these legal people getting paid by the minute at the Brexit Inquisition thing?

I wish I was on some of that! Has Parliament the right (in Law) or has the Prime Minster the right (in law) to call the shots on Article 50?

Hmmm...................... let's have a good few days of chat about it - all thirty or forty of us - and all the lovely money and expenses and free dinners.....

,,,,and then, let's go away, look up a few pertinent documents on the law of the land and make the decision in a few minutes. Then let's employ someone to write up our reasons for such a finding, making sure that the reasons take all day to read out so that people don't realise how simple the decision was and to give ourselves an excuse for why it took so long to discuss the details.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 8 Dec - 15:54

That's life in general otherwise career advice talks would be pretty short fly. You might get lucky but probably get run over by a parked car. You could end up in a high paying job ...as manager of your wife who will sell her body to the masses. You will be stuck on benefits for your entire lifetime, making no effort to get off and you will despise other people for being benefit scroungers . You are thick as pigsh*t but your daddy paid us lots of money for you to get a job that can be done by anyone who can operate a mouse and a keyboard. You can't tell your ar*e from your elbow but you will be put in charge of the country making decisions based on information given by people far cleverer than you made for their own benefit.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 9 Dec - 13:11

SecretFly wrote:How much are these legal people getting paid by the minute at the Brexit Inquisition thing?

I wish I was on some of that! Has Parliament the right (in Law) or has the Prime Minster the right (in law) to call the shots on Article 50?

Hmmm...................... let's have a good few days of chat about it - all thirty or forty of us - and all the lovely money and expenses and free dinners.....

,,,,and then, let's go away, look up a few pertinent documents on the law of the land and make the decision in a few minutes. Then let's employ someone to write up our reasons for such a finding, making sure that the reasons take all day to read out so that people don't realise how simple the decision was and to give ourselves an excuse for why it took so long to discuss the details.

But presumably you accept it's a decision that needs to be correct in Law? In other words, worth spending the time on to get right.

by **superflyweight** Fri 9 Dec - 15:02

navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:How much are these legal people getting paid by the minute at the Brexit Inquisition thing?

I wish I was on some of that! Has Parliament the right (in Law) or has the Prime Minster the right (in law) to call the shots on Article 50?

Hmmm...................... let's have a good few days of chat about it - all thirty or forty of us - and all the lovely money and expenses and free dinners.....

,,,,and then, let's go away, look up a few pertinent documents on the law of the land and make the decision in a few minutes. Then let's employ someone to write up our reasons for such a finding, making sure that the reasons take all day to read out so that people don't realise how simple the decision was and to give ourselves an excuse for why it took so long to discuss the details.
But presumably you accept it's a decision that needs to be correct in Law? In other words, worth spending the time on to get right.

He'll need to sober up quite significantly before he can answer that.

by SecretFly Fri 9 Dec - 18:55

navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:How much are these legal people getting paid by the minute at the Brexit Inquisition thing?

I wish I was on some of that! Has Parliament the right (in Law) or has the Prime Minster the right (in law) to call the shots on Article 50?

Hmmm...................... let's have a good few days of chat about it - all thirty or forty of us - and all the lovely money and expenses and free dinners.....

,,,,and then, let's go away, look up a few pertinent documents on the law of the land and make the decision in a few minutes. Then let's employ someone to write up our reasons for such a finding, making sure that the reasons take all day to read out so that people don't realise how simple the decision was and to give ourselves an excuse for why it took so long to discuss the details.
But presumably you accept it's a decision that needs to be correct in Law? In other words, worth spending the time on to get right.

I'd presume, navy, that the lawfully correct choice is already there in print somewhere. But yes, law requires a great degree of 'interpretation' to give lawmakers their very jobs. Making law short on lingo and non-evasive in determination would obviously put many legal eagles out of work. So make law a fuzzy thing and debate the difference.

by SecretFly Fri 9 Dec - 19:05

superflyweight wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:How much are these legal people getting paid by the minute at the Brexit Inquisition thing?

I wish I was on some of that! Has Parliament the right (in Law) or has the Prime Minster the right (in law) to call the shots on Article 50?

Hmmm...................... let's have a good few days of chat about it - all thirty or forty of us - and all the lovely money and expenses and free dinners.....

,,,,and then, let's go away, look up a few pertinent documents on the law of the land and make the decision in a few minutes. Then let's employ someone to write up our reasons for such a finding, making sure that the reasons take all day to read out so that people don't realise how simple the decision was and to give ourselves an excuse for why it took so long to discuss the details.
But presumably you accept it's a decision that needs to be correct in Law? In other words, worth spending the time on to get right.

He'll need to sober up quite significantly before he can answer that.

The bristling tension in this place every time I open my mouth. Yes, I'm decidedly unBBC in approach, Fly. But no, I don't need a crutch of alcohol to view this crazy world the way I do. Maybe I should become an habitual drunk though so that I can better accept it all at face value like any decent gentleman would and should?

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 9 Dec - 19:24

Ah Murdoch makes his move.

by SecretFly Tue 13 Dec - 14:54

Oh we're on to weather and global warming? Lovely.

Why doesn't someone start a dedicated thread to it - I'm sure it would get contributors? i.e. -surely Brexit isn't responsible for everything?

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 13 Dec - 15:38

Can any Admin/Mods transfer the above GW posts to the new one just added?

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 13 Dec - 15:45

Brexit is to blame for everything Secret! Didn't you know??

by SecretFly Tue 13 Dec - 15:50

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Can any Admin/Mods transfer the above GW posts to the new one just added?

There is one up now!? Great. I'll be over to drop my ten cents worth ( ie 3 million words) to the subject some day soon. Cool

It's time to get all these habitual niggling issues out in the open and genuinely discuss them rather than paying homage to declared 'correct opinion'.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 13 Dec - 15:52

Amazing! I did it right....just throw money Smile

.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 15 Dec - 10:27

Oopps....and to think that Boris et al were/are telling everyone differently. Still, this guy's only an "expert" re. EU and trade and we know that sort of person isn't worth listening to...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 15 Dec - 10:40

I have heard through anecdotal evidence that lots of small companies are going bust but not yet seen news reports on it. Small as in 100 people or less. Anyone know of any?

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 15 Dec - 10:45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38236852

May the magician.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 16 Dec - 19:01

https://theconversation.com/how-eastern-europe-is-best-placed-to-hit-the-ground-running-after-a-hard-brexit-70451

by **ShahenshahG** Sat 17 Dec - 3:56

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38345826

Will even one of the poor sods who voted for this disaster get anything close to what they were hoping for? Contempt kind of turning into pity.

by SecretFly Sun 18 Dec - 12:19

Well I guess everyone will still have the BBC to cheer everyone up.
"A Bah Humbug Christmas to Everyone! We'll keep giving the Gloomy Anti-Brexit News and then you can all relax away from the news over Christmas Dinner by watching the double murder/drunken row Festive Edition of EastEnders! Happy Chr...Holimas!!!!"

by Corporalhumblebucket Tue 20 Dec - 23:46

At least we Remoaners can have a more cheerful Christmas now that we know Mrs May has chosen the colour scheme for Brexit. That seems to be the first semblance of a tangible plan. No doubt the less important issues to do with trade etc will follow in due course.

Weasel words from the PM in avoiding the question posed to her by the Select Committee on whether Parliament would actually get to vote on the deal she eventually comes up with.

by greengoblin Wed 21 Dec - 11:58

Can the proponents of open door immigration explain how this country can carry on accommodating half a million new arrivals every year, and also explain why the cultural transformation of entire towns and therefore in the long run the entire country is desirable? What do they will think will happen when extremist Muslim MP's get elected, which absolutely will happen in the near future?

by **rIck_dAgless** Wed 21 Dec - 12:09

Can the proponents of closed door policy please explain, what would happen if we imported no new talent, skills and ideas, and could not go elsewhere to ply our trades. What happens when areas and towns culturally stagnate and get stuck in a rut, and what do they think will happen when an extremist far right white person get elected, which absolutely will happen in the near future?

by greengoblin Wed 21 Dec - 12:21

I support high skilled only immigration. Towns lived very happily with close communities before mass immigration reared it's ugly head. What is now deemed 'far right' is what was once considered normal 50 years ago. Opponents of mass immigration are labelled 'far right'.

by **Hero** Wed 21 Dec - 12:26

Beating kids, treating different cultures as second class citizens, homosexuals being arrested etc was considered normal 50 years ago.
We moved on, Mosley.

by **rIck_dAgless** Wed 21 Dec - 12:27

What happens when someone does not have the opportunity to skill up where they are due to political unrest?

Towns traditionally welcomed many travellers and traders and accepted their customs and adopted many practices from them, that's how they progressed and advanced.

No-one labels opponents of mass immigration far right, apart from people arguing on internet forums, and a lot of the time it is the people who are against mass immigration accusing others, unjustly, of calling them that, which is where the label comes from.

by **ShahenshahG** Wed 21 Dec - 13:24

What amuses me most is how Non Eu migration.... the easiest to manage has not been reduced but increased even though Theresa May desperately tried. EU migrants contribute more and are less likely to claim benefits. Both mum and Dad tend to be working two jobs but still we need to get more immigrants because enough aren't coming from Europe. Or rather weren't until Brexit. Just out of a sense of how perverse this whole thing is. Some Eastern European countries have a bilateral investment treaty which likely means that their investments will be protected far more than British or French/German etc. Also no matter what deal is agreed with Europe we are going to get back a huge number of unregistered pensioners and criminals who avoided claiming residence to pay UK tax. We're going to have to spend a few billion a year on regulation and the accompanying civil service increase all of whom will be trained pretty much from scratch. 350 million a week is going to look like Victoria Beckham's lunch money once it goes through. We could avoid that by various deals joining a customs union...but then we'd have to follow all the laws and get no say in them. I suspect we are not going to get the point of origin pass that allowed us to be so successful in inviting international investment into the UK. The EU has begun to take on the US on its own protectionist policies and though in its early stages and beset with arguments might match their laws which insist a certain amount of capital is held in the US. This will be an unmitigated disaster for us.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 21 Dec - 17:18

greengoblin wrote:Can the proponents of open door immigration explain how this country can carry on accommodating half a million new arrivals every year, and also explain why the cultural transformation of entire towns and therefore in the long run the entire country is desirable? What do they will think will happen when extremist Muslim MP's get elected, which absolutely will happen in the near future?

500,000?

Net migration has averaged about 300k since the GFC and the long term average is lower than that even.

And EU migration, the only element relevant to Brexit, accounts for half that again.

And given that it is established that immigrants are net contributors to the public purse I would presume we could use that to help 'accommodate' (in all senses of the word) those new arrivals.

by **rodders** Thu 22 Dec - 10:09

greengoblin wrote:I support high skilled only immigration. Towns lived very happily with close communities before mass immigration reared it's ugly head.

Actually mass immigration raised its ugly head just after the last Ice age. Without it there would be no one here.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 22 Dec - 14:20

Looks like they're going after Carney in the new year after getting deloitte to grovel an apology for writing the truth. Think Brexit is going to be worse than we think it is if May can't hack someone crossing her.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 22 Dec - 14:35

May's problems like Blair's will come from within...

I see Corbyn has cut the lead down to six and he isn’t Labour's answer.

Unfortunately for them Sanders and Trump's good showing has dented the Tory appetite to go to the public before the boundary changes in 2018...Polls are unreliable and the Libs are winning again.

Can May last with a majority of 12 ??.

That is the question.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 22 Dec - 14:42

May is looking increasingly clueless and authoritarian.

Her condemnation of the strikers has backfired too. She simply can't see that these people are the "normal" people that she's trying to get behind her. Rather than being outraged by these people sticking up for themselves, maybe she should be outraged at the worsening wages and working conditions in the UK.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 22 Dec - 14:58

Corbyn hasn't cut any leads. Total baloney.

"Let's ignore 9 out of 10 results because I've found 1 that I like!"

Labour have been totally blitzed in the last couple of by-elections.

Copeland in January will be massive - a real show of how far the party may have fallen with Captain Commie in charge.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 22 Dec - 15:00

Pr4wn wrote:May is looking increasingly clueless and authoritarian.

Her condemnation of the strikers has backfired too. She simply can't see that these people are the "normal" people that she's trying to get behind her. Rather than being outraged by these people sticking up for themselves, maybe she should be outraged at the worsening wages and working conditions in the UK.

Or maybe she's playing the percentages and looking a few hundred hardcore Labour guaranteed votes versus 10s of 100s of commuters in Tory and Lib Dem areas.

Working conditions aren't worsening and wages are going up. Public support for grossly overpaid lazy Trots is dwindling to minimal levels.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 22 Dec - 15:10

TopHat24/7 wrote:Corbyn hasn't cut any leads. Total baloney.

"Let's ignore 9 out of 10 results because I've found 1 that I like!"

Labour have been totally blitzed in the last couple of by-elections.

Copeland in January will be massive - a real show of how far the party may have fallen with Captain Commie in charge.

With all due respect...When the same poll that had him 14 points down has him 6 it is silly to say he hasn't cut any leads.....

He's cut the lead in more than one poll also...If you do your research....Opinion and Ipsos to name 2..

May's unfavorability ratings have slipped under 50%...Which is probably why..

I won't vote for Labour under Corbyn....So saying I've found one I like is factually incorrect also.....

But I applaud consistency and you are certainly consistent..

Try to be less vociferous until you get your facts right mate.....I tend to back my opinions up..

But I'm glad to see your posting again........It's always a pleasure..

by **Pr4wn** Thu 22 Dec - 15:12

Wages for the masses are going down in real-terms. That much is very well-documented.

The Post Office workers show the disconnect most starkly. These are people that work for a body that used to be public, was sold off and now they're having to deal with worsening conditions while being berated by the political elite.

May has absolutely no idea and she comes across as quite a nasty piece of work.

by Sponsored content