| Brilliant article in the New York Times 16:40 - May 7 with 2856 views | Ryorry |
|  |
| |  |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 18:36 - May 7 with 2153 views | HARRY10 |
It was written by a British journalist, who also writes for the Spectator.
Taking nothing from this piece, however this has been the stock in trade of the Guardian since the buffoon first began lying about the 'oven ready deal'
" many will look back on this as the end of the last relevancy of the UK in the modern world" (comments)
I would say, more that it is a period where the UK went loopy and began to shut itself away from the rest of the word - by legislation, as well as representation. That Macron has not bothered to phone Johnson (?) and he was clearly snubbed at the Nato meeting was less due to his incompetence than to his being a Putin apologist, and so peddling an anti EU line.
This time will pass, as will the senile bigots behind brexit. And as well as the newer generation, business will not tolerate this costly and damaging isolation.
The thought in NI behind Sinn Feins and the Alliance Partys growth is they are seen as a lifeboat off HMS UK which has decided to blow a hole below its own decks. A united Ireland may be some way off, but the absurd nutters marching up and down the street in Homepride flour outfits are now regarded not as a quaint throwback, but a real holdback.
Those in NI born after the Good Friday agreement are now becoming parents. That hate and bigotry is not part of their lives. They see being part of the EU and a wider word as a necessary part of their lies, not something to believe 'bogeyman' stories about.
Ans when this awful time has passed, and in decades to come, when younger folk as you 'what on earth did people think they were doing', then to paraphrase Kipling
""If any question why the UK died, Tell them, because our 'betters's lied."
(might be best to leave out the bit about so many believing those lies) |  | | |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 19:18 - May 7 with 2120 views | Darth_Koont |
The name of the journalist rang a bell.
She was one of the most smeary of the smearers towards Corbyn.
So I guess she made her bed and is now writing about it. Win-win for her, not so great for everyone else. |  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 21:36 - May 7 with 2021 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 19:18 - May 7 by Darth_Koont |
The name of the journalist rang a bell.
She was one of the most smeary of the smearers towards Corbyn.
So I guess she made her bed and is now writing about it. Win-win for her, not so great for everyone else. |
How absolutely typical of you to somehow turn a brilliant anti-Johnson article into a retrospective whinge about "poor hard done by Jeremy Corbyn".
No wonder the Labour party is struggling, with "supporters" like you incessantly stirring & creating/increasing divisions within it. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 21:48 - May 7 with 1994 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 18:36 - May 7 by HARRY10 |
It was written by a British journalist, who also writes for the Spectator.
Taking nothing from this piece, however this has been the stock in trade of the Guardian since the buffoon first began lying about the 'oven ready deal'
" many will look back on this as the end of the last relevancy of the UK in the modern world" (comments)
I would say, more that it is a period where the UK went loopy and began to shut itself away from the rest of the word - by legislation, as well as representation. That Macron has not bothered to phone Johnson (?) and he was clearly snubbed at the Nato meeting was less due to his incompetence than to his being a Putin apologist, and so peddling an anti EU line.
This time will pass, as will the senile bigots behind brexit. And as well as the newer generation, business will not tolerate this costly and damaging isolation.
The thought in NI behind Sinn Feins and the Alliance Partys growth is they are seen as a lifeboat off HMS UK which has decided to blow a hole below its own decks. A united Ireland may be some way off, but the absurd nutters marching up and down the street in Homepride flour outfits are now regarded not as a quaint throwback, but a real holdback.
Those in NI born after the Good Friday agreement are now becoming parents. That hate and bigotry is not part of their lives. They see being part of the EU and a wider word as a necessary part of their lies, not something to believe 'bogeyman' stories about.
Ans when this awful time has passed, and in decades to come, when younger folk as you 'what on earth did people think they were doing', then to paraphrase Kipling
""If any question why the UK died, Tell them, because our 'betters's lied."
(might be best to leave out the bit about so many believing those lies) |
I’m surprised to hear it’s by a Spectator writer as a lot of their stuff in recent years has been delusional or racist, or both.
For a minute I thought this was classic Spectator; outrage at something we’ve known for years, as it’s no surprise at all that Johnson has turned out this way. But after that wobbly start it’s a neat, factual summary of the mess we’re in. |  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 22:38 - May 7 with 1929 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 21:36 - May 7 by Ryorry |
How absolutely typical of you to somehow turn a brilliant anti-Johnson article into a retrospective whinge about "poor hard done by Jeremy Corbyn".
No wonder the Labour party is struggling, with "supporters" like you incessantly stirring & creating/increasing divisions within it. |
Oh please.
I remember you among many others waving those attacks through.
The subsequent hand-wringing since Johnson has been in power is nauseating. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 23:03 - May 7 with 1885 views | HARRY10 |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 21:48 - May 7 by Swansea_Blue |
I’m surprised to hear it’s by a Spectator writer as a lot of their stuff in recent years has been delusional or racist, or both.
For a minute I thought this was classic Spectator; outrage at something we’ve known for years, as it’s no surprise at all that Johnson has turned out this way. But after that wobbly start it’s a neat, factual summary of the mess we’re in. |
Not so much a Spectator writer, more a freelance
"Tamya Gold has written for British newspapers, including The Guardian, the Daily Mail, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times[2] and the Evening Standard, and for The Spectator magazine. "
So right across the political spectrum
The piece adds nothing that we did not already know, and no real new insight. It is pretty standard fare for what is written outside of the UK.
Within these borders some still see themselves as plucky 'escapees' - the first to break free from the bounds of the (supposed) tyrannical EU. To be followed by others who had the same mindset. Only that hasn't happened, other than some stirrings in France funded, as with the UK, by money from Putin.
The UK is now adrift in the ocean, having jumped over board from a liner, convinced that it could go faster under its own steam.
No 89m Turks set to swamp the UK, though plenty of others landing by boat now the UK is no longer a signature to the Dublin Accord
And what of the EU army that was to see German generals in charge of the British Tommy - another brexiter lie. What we do see is an EU working together to defend European democracy, while we fight to stop Ukrainian refugees seeking a safe haven in the UK.
From the outside it must seem as if we have taken leave of our senses. Perhaps they will take note of what is happening in Wales, Scotland and NI, where righties have been ejected by the score from local government. We are seeing again the pre WW1 Balkan crisis where smaller nations were attempting to break free from the then 'sick man' of Europe - Turkey.
Far from being on the outside lane with much of the EU, we are not even on the other two lanes - instead, parked up on the hard shoulder with the engine switched off
The thick man of Europe. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 23:54 - May 7 with 1829 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 23:04 - May 7 by Darth_Koont |
What am I swerving according to you? |
And another disingenuous swerve from you.
The entire content & meaning of my post.
Obviously. [Post edited 7 May 2022 23:57]
| |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 00:18 - May 8 with 1791 views | BondiBlue |
Why does political commentary no longer seem to involve any discussion of policy any more? It's just a load of "this guy's a twot", "yeah but this guy's even worse". | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 06:26 - May 8 with 1694 views | BlueBadger |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 00:18 - May 8 by BondiBlue |
Why does political commentary no longer seem to involve any discussion of policy any more? It's just a load of "this guy's a twot", "yeah but this guy's even worse". |
Because the current government(and to a lesser degree Labour under Corbyn) don't have any policies beyond 'protect the Dear Leader' and 'stay in power'. [Post edited 8 May 2022 6:30]
|  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 11:04 - May 8 with 1513 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 06:26 - May 8 by BlueBadger |
Because the current government(and to a lesser degree Labour under Corbyn) don't have any policies beyond 'protect the Dear Leader' and 'stay in power'. [Post edited 8 May 2022 6:30]
|
Surely, clinging on to a “Dear Leader” without any policies is one for the current Labour Party and its fanboys to address?
But, of course, we are talking about deeply unserious people. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 11:41 - May 8 with 1464 views | J2BLUE |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 11:04 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
Surely, clinging on to a “Dear Leader” without any policies is one for the current Labour Party and its fanboys to address?
But, of course, we are talking about deeply unserious people. |
When you criticise a lack of policies it's very hard to argue with it as Labour seem to take three weeks to decide how they feel about an issue and by the time they do it has moved on.
No problem with criticising actual points rather than just pretending Labour are as bad as the Tories even if they aren't exactly as you would like. |  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 12:00 - May 8 with 1438 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 11:41 - May 8 by J2BLUE |
When you criticise a lack of policies it's very hard to argue with it as Labour seem to take three weeks to decide how they feel about an issue and by the time they do it has moved on.
No problem with criticising actual points rather than just pretending Labour are as bad as the Tories even if they aren't exactly as you would like. |
Sure. But with a weak, empty but right-leaning opposition then the Tories are safe. Ideologically certainly, but also looks like they’ll be safe electorally given Labour hardly made a dent.
Instead, it’s other parties and policies that look like the alternative.
Labour should be taking a leaf out of Welsh Labour’s leadership and values which are resonating with people and seeing them actively benefit from Tory misrule.
Of course, even if they replace Keir the likelihood is that it will be with another similarly empty and valueless leader who will also look to distance him- or herself from social democracy. The Labour Party as establishment vehicle is more important to these people. Which is why they and our major party politics is so unserious. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 12:28 - May 8 with 1390 views | footers |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 19:18 - May 7 by Darth_Koont |
The name of the journalist rang a bell.
She was one of the most smeary of the smearers towards Corbyn.
So I guess she made her bed and is now writing about it. Win-win for her, not so great for everyone else. |
Tanya Gold is a vile hack who'll write whatever you tell her to. She has zero political compass or morals of her own. |  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 12:55 - May 8 with 1348 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 12:28 - May 8 by footers |
Tanya Gold is a vile hack who'll write whatever you tell her to. She has zero political compass or morals of her own. |
Representative of a national media who probably are the underlying cause of the political low-water mark we’re at.
The vast majority are absolutely in step with empty, rightish politics that suits themselves and their donors/lobbyists/bosses interests. And similarly content to sew that power, influence and money up in our antiquated FPTP system.
Of course, that’s a continued massive disservice to the vast majority of people in the UK who aren’t as white, well off or well connected as them. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:01 - May 8 with 1262 views | tractordownsouth |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 12:00 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
Sure. But with a weak, empty but right-leaning opposition then the Tories are safe. Ideologically certainly, but also looks like they’ll be safe electorally given Labour hardly made a dent.
Instead, it’s other parties and policies that look like the alternative.
Labour should be taking a leaf out of Welsh Labour’s leadership and values which are resonating with people and seeing them actively benefit from Tory misrule.
Of course, even if they replace Keir the likelihood is that it will be with another similarly empty and valueless leader who will also look to distance him- or herself from social democracy. The Labour Party as establishment vehicle is more important to these people. Which is why they and our major party politics is so unserious. |
As someone who has a lot of involvement with Welsh Labour, it's far more complicated than 'Mark Drakeford supported Corbyn and is therefore doing better' as some prominent Twitter accounts have been saying in the last few days. |  |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:15 - May 8 with 1241 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:01 - May 8 by tractordownsouth |
As someone who has a lot of involvement with Welsh Labour, it's far more complicated than 'Mark Drakeford supported Corbyn and is therefore doing better' as some prominent Twitter accounts have been saying in the last few days. |
Of course. It’s about policies much more than that. An actual differentiation from the Tories — as well as being trusted and trustworthy.
Should be a model there for UK Labour. But that accountability is so against the Westminster grain and the donor/lobbyist/media owner reality that we’re not likely to see that anytime soon. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:26 - May 8 with 1216 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 21:48 - May 7 by Swansea_Blue |
I’m surprised to hear it’s by a Spectator writer as a lot of their stuff in recent years has been delusional or racist, or both.
For a minute I thought this was classic Spectator; outrage at something we’ve known for years, as it’s no surprise at all that Johnson has turned out this way. But after that wobbly start it’s a neat, factual summary of the mess we’re in. |
Amusingly written though, which is what I liked about it - cos if you didn't laugh, you'd cry. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:36 - May 8 with 1189 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 11:41 - May 8 by J2BLUE |
When you criticise a lack of policies it's very hard to argue with it as Labour seem to take three weeks to decide how they feel about an issue and by the time they do it has moved on.
No problem with criticising actual points rather than just pretending Labour are as bad as the Tories even if they aren't exactly as you would like. |
Re your second para - it's just struck me in this thread that DK uses the same "swerve and distract" tactics that Johnson does 😂
Will look out for the point in your first para - not something I've consciously noticed before. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:57 - May 8 with 1165 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:36 - May 8 by Ryorry |
Re your second para - it's just struck me in this thread that DK uses the same "swerve and distract" tactics that Johnson does 😂
Will look out for the point in your first para - not something I've consciously noticed before. |
I’ll ask again: What am I swerving?
I haven’t the foggiest what you’re on about. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:04 - May 8 with 1133 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:57 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
I’ll ask again: What am I swerving?
I haven’t the foggiest what you’re on about. |
My replies of 21.36 & 22.50* yesterday evening.
*edited for time error [Post edited 8 May 2022 15:06]
| |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:05 - May 8 with 1131 views | J2BLUE |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 14:36 - May 8 by Ryorry |
Re your second para - it's just struck me in this thread that DK uses the same "swerve and distract" tactics that Johnson does 😂
Will look out for the point in your first para - not something I've consciously noticed before. |
Every time there's a big issue Starmer does tend to take an age to tell you his opinion.
A better option than Johnson of course but a bit more decisiveness would be nice. | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:09 - May 8 with 1119 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:04 - May 8 by Ryorry |
My replies of 21.36 & 22.50* yesterday evening.
*edited for time error [Post edited 8 May 2022 15:06]
|
A post I replied to (you just didn’t like my response) and another post that doesn’t exist?
Why did you swerve my post about the journalist and go on a silly personal attack?
I DEMAND ANSWERS!!! | |
| |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:17 - May 8 with 1069 views | Ryorry |
| Brilliant article in the New York Times on 15:09 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
A post I replied to (you just didn’t like my response) and another post that doesn’t exist?
Why did you swerve my post about the journalist and go on a silly personal attack?
I DEMAND ANSWERS!!! |
Well done on your hat-trick of swerves.
Your orignal answer said nothing whatsoever about the article (as I clearly pointed out in my 21.36 post) - you just used it as a platform for your approx 25,596th tedious bleat about how badly poor Corbyn was treated.
"Silly personal attack" - oh the irony  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
