I believe there is a person called Macron. If it is a run-off between him and Le Pen, he will slaughter her.
Nice to know you are an OBAMA fan!!! PS: Good luck to the IMPS in their pursit for promotion. And Scunny!!
Have always said I was hooked in 2008 when he was making all the campaign speeches. He lost that though for 8 years and got his mojo back campaigning for Hillary. Imps should be fine unless the wheels come off the bus.
I'm a huge fan of Obama, but he is indirectly responsible for trump in a strange way. To have such a forward-thinking, liberal, intelligent leader in a country where a lot of people (congress and senate included) haven't caught up yet! I despair at humanity.
A lot of contradictory and hypocritical bluster coming from Tulip Siddiq on this Brexit debate just like she gave the other day on Trump. Considering she is the niece of the PM of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina, one of the 16 countries that refuse entry to Israeli passport holders as well as persecuting people involved in political opposition. And yes she is supposed to be pretty close to said Aunt. She was even on the Beeb talking about how she has to have security when she holds her surgery since she came out for remain. Compare that to in her Aunt's country where security would not be much help when government forces come knocking on your door. I guess we will hear her speaking up on this issue now then seeing as she is the media's flavour of the month. Surely the media who know her links will make a mention of it.................ahhh, maybe not.
Petition to stop taxpayer's funding his legal costs for Iraq war defence. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/165342
Some mistake there Imps, you accidentally forgot to mention anything she said and just attacked her personally instead. Here's a link to help, it's only 3 minutes: http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/6c20216a-6561-414d-8ad9-2d3a0036cab1?in=14:41:40&out=14:45:45
She spoke about not discriminating against people. That her constituency doesn't get alarmed at accents or different languages. She continued about discrimination. Without a thought about what her Aunt in Bangladesh oversees where a growing number of killings of atheist bloggers and religious minority groups who have tried to exercise their right of free speech by criticising Islam. And of course refusing entry to the country for Israeli passport holders. I watched her live. I then listened to her (she is flavour of the month) interviewed on BBC News where she repeated much of it. Maybe I will give her the benefit of doubt until a Bangladesh subject comes up for debate (maybe that would be worth a petition) and then she can detail her disgust openly............surely..........will she be in the house for that one?
Headine from the BBC News Webpage May: "He leads a protest, I lead a country." If so why is she following the lead set by Nigel Farage, her eurosceptic backbenchers and newspapers such as the Sun, Express, and Mail. That is not leadership at all. She should listen to the wise owls in her party and ditch Brexit immediately. That would be leadership of the highest order.
Bill to trigger Article 50 is passed in the House of Commons 498 to 114. The ayes have it the ayes have it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
Now lets just take a further look... Born in this country, brought up in Bangladesh, but has lived here since 1998, aged 15. Clearly like the rest of us she is responsible for her/our Aunt's actions. One of my aunts was a complete bitch and died in the 70s, but I still feel guilty... get a grip. If your are going to make an argument for condemning B Dash for their treatment of non Muslims fair enough, but don't implicate the PM's niece just because of her political affiliations in the country...
It is fascinating to read the comments regarding Brexit on this thread but I feel the best response I have heard came from the MP for York who was interviewed on Channel 4 news who chose to vote against enacting Article 50 because that was in line with the wishes of the people who voted for her. The problem with the European parliament is that it is not democratic but because of the wide range of different interests you wonder just how democratic it could ever be because of the large swathes of people / countries in whose interest certain motions could be spectacularly detrimental. In this respect Farage is correct despite the fact that I hate hi with a passion. However if something is wrong you cannot fix it from outside and that it why I believe we should have remained within and try to repair whatever was wrong and deemed unacceptable by the population. I am sure that there would be a wide consensus for this across Europe. I was bitterly disappointed in Corbyn's lacklustre campaign which seemed to be a ploy to allow the Conservative party to destroy itself. Instead, this appears to have happened to Labour and the rot which set in when Kinnock tried to "modernise" the party in the 1980's has seen the party alienating it's old, core Working Class support. Far better, in my opinion, for Labour to realise that Liberalism was a threat to it's core position and maybe try to engage with the people it should be representing and maybe play Farage at his own game and work with other socialist parties throughout Europe to see that they could work on a common agenda. The "system" on the EU was already in place and I think it was a missed opportunity that all the socialists throughout Europe never exploited the organisational structure of the EU to strive for a fairer world which would have obviated the need for populist politicians such as Farage and Le Pen. The idea of socialist countries working in the interest of each other was something that was first mooted over 100 years ago by people like Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg and whilst communism clearly failed, it is extremely disappointing that the EU never strived for a more socialist and equitable agenda. The EU is an organisation where there is such a structure of government, legislation and judiciary in Europe that has been hijacked by businesses as opposed to demonstrably working towards making the lives of people throughout Europe better. Maybe if it had started as a social union as opposed to an economic one, the correct balance would have be struck. If everything had been divvyed up and distributed across the continent, think how much better Europe would be. There has been nearly 4000 years of civilisation in Europe and whilst there have been grave errors in government throughout the region and history, you would have thought that this would have been the one region in the world where humanity would have got it right. We are totally mistaken to look towards the US as being some kind of idealistic democracy and as Europeans we do ourselves an injustice to even consider that the US might be the leader of the free world, The way the US sees itself is nothing other than a conceit.
She is very close to her Aunt. She was yesterday grandstanding warbling on about Trump and his religious bigotry and banning nationalities. Do you not see the problem here? She is critical of Trump. Will she say the same "should" a Bangladesh debate "just happen" to make it to debate?
Totally agree but I gone think anyone would ever argue that Bangladesh is a beacon of the free world. It never existed until the 1970s following the partition which, incidentally, Lord Mountbatten was instrumental in promulgating. I went to hear Tony Benn about ten years ago when he was appearing at the Salisbury Festival and he made a point that the British parliament could learn a lot of things about democracy from that of India's. This was quite an interesting argument to say the least! Still, the audience of all political hues gave him a standing ovation afterwards. Shame we don't have any true parliamentarians like Tony Benn anymore who truly understand and appreciate democracy. they broke the mould after they made him.
Very good post (although I disagree with staying in) The Labour problem is still there now. They believe their own spin and the media keeps repeating it. It is probably very true that 2 thirds of Labour voters voted to remain however that is itself the party's problem. A lot of those votes are newcomers and it ignores what way people who did not vote Labour this time, but used to, voted. That is their "rock and hard place" scenario. They cannot win an election without getting those votes back. Scotland might never return so they have to get even more than those that used to vote Labour back. It isn't much to do with Corbyn although he has just been the latest nail in the preverbial. They have been shedding votes at a rate of knots since their Landslide. A very small peak for Ed Milliband mainly because of the Lib Dem crash but Labour are down and out at this point in time. 1997 = 13.5m 71.3% turnout 2001 = 10.7m 59.4% turnout 2005 = 9.6m 61.4% turnout 2010 = 8.6m 65.1% turnout 2015 = 9.3m 66.4% turnout So in that 2015 election it does look like they improved however how many of those are Lib Dem votes? Votes that I would expect a large amount to go back to Lib Dems next time (as we are seeing in by elections.) Lib Dems lost 4.4m votes in 2015 You can probably assume at least half of them went to Labour which would mean their true 2015 would be closer to 7.1m rather than the 9.3m. Also bear in mind that the 1997 turnout was very very high @ 71.3% and it has had to recover ever since from a low of 59.4% in 2001. So it isn't just a worry that Labour is losing votes each election. It is losing votes DESPITE the turnout increasing from 2005 onward. It isn't just about Europe and like Ian says it was the attempts to "modernise" the party that caused the problem. I don;t think Kinnock was the problem per se, just the complete redirection by Blair and the aftermath his "reign" which still lives on in the Blairites in the house who do not seem to realise that if the Lib Dems regain a fair chunk of their votes in 2020 Labour is going to be struggling to fill half the opposition benches. On the flipside the Tories have started to recover since 2001 and will increase further with May in charge. It will be an even bluer map in 2020.
Sadly Imp, I fully agree with your analysis... However if my experience has taught me anything it is do not look too far ahead in politics when predicting...
Imp I think the next election will be fascinating and I don't see it being a whitewash for the Conservatives. I strongly believe that Brexit will ultimately prove to be a disaster and May needs to be sure that she does no align herself in any shame or form to Donald Trump as he will be far more toxic than George W Bush. She has inherited a poisoned chalice and once the economy nose-dives and incomes start to fall, she will become very unpopular. The one party that will benefit will be the Lib Dems. They will be the big winners in the next election having previously taken their punishment for being part of the coalition. I think that they will be part of any coalition that forms in future but think that the next government will be a three party coalition with labour and the SNP. Without Scotland, Labour have no chance even if they capture the large percentage of the UKIP vote. I think that UKIP will probably be the biggest loser as they will be blamed once the economy takes a nose dive. At this point in time, it is unfortunate that the most "effective" political leader appears to be Nicola Sturgeon ( another politician who has me wanting to throw things at the TV!.) I feel that the next government will be a three-way coalition and that this will actually be to the benefit of democracy as you will see fewer MPS being told what to vote by the party whips and the politicians actually voting to represent the people who put them in power. It is interesting to think that party politics might be redundant and whilst I am probably quite left -leaning in my views, this might be to the benefit of the country. Most people would welcome a world without the likes of blair, Mandelson, etc and the cynical world of spinning and hypocracy. The only disappointing thing is that the likes of Farage have exploited the situation and pretend to be interested in "giving people a voice" whereas the kind of policies he would pursue would ultimately rob people of their rights. I find that channel Four news is a good programme to put MPs to task yet it frequently encounters MPs who tatae that they entered parliament to make a difference. The whole evolution of the Brisih parliamentary system was to represent the people and give them a voice - even back to the time when Simon De Montfort called the first parliament of the burgesses of towns because of the dissatisfaction with how Henry III was running the country. The UK has seen parliament evolve and change as a greater percentage of the population are given the vote so that we had arrived at a situation where the opinions of the population where heard. I think that these opinions are nowso diverse that it is ridiculous to think that a political party can capture what people want. You start to think that coalitions might actually work to the advantage of the people and if people can see that the MPS are working in their interests and not a political party, then there can be a re-connection. I wouldn't say this was popularism as we have seen with Brexit and Trump This brand of politics is playing on people's hatreds and is about forcing your own advantage to the disadvantage if your neighbour. Society does not work like this for long and this is why I feel the whole world would be better off as a kind of socialist utopia where everyone works for the advantage of each other.
