brENsKi
dbl post
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brENsKi
agreed. but there has to be a threshold somewhere. and £2,500 is a very high limit to set. what's happening to the world is terrible, and what our Govt has done is so far-reaching that it goes a long way toward removing the financial burden and stress of not being at work.
you have to agree - there's nothing like before, and probably never will be again. 80% is a real help - will keep the wolf from the door - and more importantly, it helps us stay home and avoid infection.
the "Nasty Party" have proven themselves to be the "Decent Party" - despite what Gerry and his dyed-in-the-wool cronies would have us believe.
you have to agree - there's nothing like before, and probably never will be again. 80% is a real help - will keep the wolf from the door - and more importantly, it helps us stay home and avoid infection.
the "Nasty Party" have proven themselves to be the "Decent Party" - despite what Gerry and his dyed-in-the-wool cronies would have us believe.
AlbaNo1
Can we now rename this thread Bojo, Prince Charles and Covid 19
At least Trump is ok.....right?
At least Trump is ok.....right?
thomasquinn 32989
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthousiastic see him messing up...big time. I tend more towards the latter, though he's done a FAR better job than Trump and Bolsonaro - I hope the latter catches COVID-19 and dies from it, he deserves it.
At the end of the day, the measures taken are very similar all around the world (excepting places where madcaps like Bolsonaro rule, or where there is no stability, like Yemen and Syria - those places could turn into hell on earth even more than they already are), what differs is the speed at which they were implemented and the degree to which they were implemented. I am of the opinion that the UK acted far too slowly, as did the US, and that it will pay a price for that. Likewise, my own country, The Netherlands, put too much trust in the common sense of the people, only handing out suggestions rather than solid instructions and restrictions until the epidemic had spread quite far.
Unless the situation is apocalyptic, as it is in some parts of Italy and Spain, a total lock down is not a good idea, IMHO - as soon as you end it, the disease will pick up where it left off unless you'd keep the lock down up for, literally, years - and I do believe in the 'flattening the curve'-strategy, but much will hinge on how effectively measures are implemented, how well they are obeyed and how long we can stick it out, as well as on the nature of the virus.
At this point, whichever way you turn it, people are going to die who would not otherwise have died, not in the last place because the capacity of all our health care systems is being exceeded. The question is, how many. If the measures nearly all countries have implemented are stuck to and work out, it'll likely result in mortality similar to a fairly bad flu year. If not, a situation like the Spanish influenza is frighteningly realistic.
Finally, as this is a totally new disease, we just don't know what to expect in terms of recovery, long-term health effects and the possible return of the disease. That's the scary part. This certainly isn't a flu, even if 80% of the people won't get any sicker from it than they would from a fairly mild flu.
People with a medical background are far more worried than most of the general public (excepting those who are panicking), that ought to be more than a little concerning. As for the people who are pre-occupied with the economic effects - if we just go ahead like nothing is wrong, the economic toll will be far heavier, because mass death is a real option then.
At the end of the day, the measures taken are very similar all around the world (excepting places where madcaps like Bolsonaro rule, or where there is no stability, like Yemen and Syria - those places could turn into hell on earth even more than they already are), what differs is the speed at which they were implemented and the degree to which they were implemented. I am of the opinion that the UK acted far too slowly, as did the US, and that it will pay a price for that. Likewise, my own country, The Netherlands, put too much trust in the common sense of the people, only handing out suggestions rather than solid instructions and restrictions until the epidemic had spread quite far.
Unless the situation is apocalyptic, as it is in some parts of Italy and Spain, a total lock down is not a good idea, IMHO - as soon as you end it, the disease will pick up where it left off unless you'd keep the lock down up for, literally, years - and I do believe in the 'flattening the curve'-strategy, but much will hinge on how effectively measures are implemented, how well they are obeyed and how long we can stick it out, as well as on the nature of the virus.
At this point, whichever way you turn it, people are going to die who would not otherwise have died, not in the last place because the capacity of all our health care systems is being exceeded. The question is, how many. If the measures nearly all countries have implemented are stuck to and work out, it'll likely result in mortality similar to a fairly bad flu year. If not, a situation like the Spanish influenza is frighteningly realistic.
Finally, as this is a totally new disease, we just don't know what to expect in terms of recovery, long-term health effects and the possible return of the disease. That's the scary part. This certainly isn't a flu, even if 80% of the people won't get any sicker from it than they would from a fairly mild flu.
People with a medical background are far more worried than most of the general public (excepting those who are panicking), that ought to be more than a little concerning. As for the people who are pre-occupied with the economic effects - if we just go ahead like nothing is wrong, the economic toll will be far heavier, because mass death is a real option then.
AlbaNo1
Interesting post thomasquinn, some good points there
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthousiastic see him messing up...big time. I tend more towards the latter, though he's done a FAR better job than Trump and Bolsonaro - I hope the latter catches COVID-19 and dies from it, he deserves it.
At the end of the day, the measures taken are very similar all around the world (excepting places where madcaps like Bolsonaro rule, or where there is no stability, like Yemen and Syria - those places could turn into hell on earth even more than they already are), what differs is the speed at which they were implemented and the degree to which they were implemented. I am of the opinion that the UK acted far too slowly, as did the US, and that it will pay a price for that. Likewise, my own country, The Netherlands, put too much trust in the common sense of the people, only handing out suggestions rather than solid instructions and restrictions until the epidemic had spread quite far.
Unless the situation is apocalyptic, as it is in some parts of Italy and Spain, a total lock down is not a good idea, IMHO - as soon as you end it, the disease will pick up where it left off unless you'd keep the lock down up for, literally, years - and I do believe in the 'flattening the curve'-strategy, but much will hinge on how effectively measures are implemented, how well they are obeyed and how long we can stick it out, as well as on the nature of the virus.
At this point, whichever way you turn it, people are going to die who would not otherwise have died, not in the last place because the capacity of all our health care systems is being exceeded. The question is, how many. If the measures nearly all countries have implemented are stuck to and work out, it'll likely result in mortality similar to a fairly bad flu year. If not, a situation like the Spanish influenza is frighteningly realistic.
Finally, as this is a totally new disease, we just don't know what to expect in terms of recovery, long-term health effects and the possible return of the disease. That's the scary part. This certainly isn't a flu, even if 80% of the people won't get any sicker from it than they would from a fairly mild flu.
People with a medical background are far more worried than most of the general public (excepting those who are panicking), that ought to be more than a little concerning. As for the people who are pre-occupied with the economic effects - if we just go ahead like nothing is wrong, the economic toll will be far heavier, because mass death is a real option then.[/QUOTE]
on one hand you say Boris acted to slowly, then you say a total lock-down is not a good idea. what would you suggest? people can't be trusted to maintain social distance, so they have to be helped.
i believe our Govt acted taking the correct measures at the right time. - you can't make decisions until you have data to use. i bet even with your 20/20 hindsight you don't have a better plan.
as for the "economic pre-occupation" - it's nothing of the sort. it's common sense. if you remove some of the financial stress for people, they're more likely to obey the rules, stay home and prevent the spread.
FWIW - and i've said this before - most of my adult life, I've voted Labour. but in a crisis (as was brexit) and now this: it needs a leader. we in the UK have one - for the first time in 12 years!.
Before you judge what our Govt may/may not have done wrong, perhaps you should look closer to home. Germany denying Austria lorry loads of facemasks, France confiscating sanitizers bound for the UK. The EU have yet to show any leadership on this and the 27 countries are in disarray.
as i've said elsewhere - it's global, and point-scoring and criticism in how other countries handle it is not the way to go. hey, but if it makes you feel better.
country:.............pop......cases....deaths...first case
Netherlands......18m.....8,600.....546.......Feb 27
UK.....................66m....14,000....759......Jan 28
i think our Govt have shown that by a methodical scientific approach cases and deaths can be minimized.
The Netherlands has been "infected" only 2/3 of the time and has 1/3 the population of the UK...yet already has a disproportionate rate of infections and death. I'd warrant that comparatively, the UK has acted in much better order.
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthousiastic see him messing up...big time. I tend more towards the latter, though he's done a FAR better job than Trump and Bolsonaro - I hope the latter catches COVID-19 and dies from it, he deserves it.
At the end of the day, the measures taken are very similar all around the world (excepting places where madcaps like Bolsonaro rule, or where there is no stability, like Yemen and Syria - those places could turn into hell on earth even more than they already are), what differs is the speed at which they were implemented and the degree to which they were implemented. I am of the opinion that the UK acted far too slowly, as did the US, and that it will pay a price for that. Likewise, my own country, The Netherlands, put too much trust in the common sense of the people, only handing out suggestions rather than solid instructions and restrictions until the epidemic had spread quite far.
Unless the situation is apocalyptic, as it is in some parts of Italy and Spain, a total lock down is not a good idea, IMHO - as soon as you end it, the disease will pick up where it left off unless you'd keep the lock down up for, literally, years - and I do believe in the 'flattening the curve'-strategy, but much will hinge on how effectively measures are implemented, how well they are obeyed and how long we can stick it out, as well as on the nature of the virus.
At this point, whichever way you turn it, people are going to die who would not otherwise have died, not in the last place because the capacity of all our health care systems is being exceeded. The question is, how many. If the measures nearly all countries have implemented are stuck to and work out, it'll likely result in mortality similar to a fairly bad flu year. If not, a situation like the Spanish influenza is frighteningly realistic.
Finally, as this is a totally new disease, we just don't know what to expect in terms of recovery, long-term health effects and the possible return of the disease. That's the scary part. This certainly isn't a flu, even if 80% of the people won't get any sicker from it than they would from a fairly mild flu.
People with a medical background are far more worried than most of the general public (excepting those who are panicking), that ought to be more than a little concerning. As for the people who are pre-occupied with the economic effects - if we just go ahead like nothing is wrong, the economic toll will be far heavier, because mass death is a real option then.[/QUOTE]
on one hand you say Boris acted to slowly, then you say a total lock-down is not a good idea. what would you suggest? people can't be trusted to maintain social distance, so they have to be helped.
i believe our Govt acted taking the correct measures at the right time. - you can't make decisions until you have data to use. i bet even with your 20/20 hindsight you don't have a better plan.
as for the "economic pre-occupation" - it's nothing of the sort. it's common sense. if you remove some of the financial stress for people, they're more likely to obey the rules, stay home and prevent the spread.
FWIW - and i've said this before - most of my adult life, I've voted Labour. but in a crisis (as was brexit) and now this: it needs a leader. we in the UK have one - for the first time in 12 years!.
Before you judge what our Govt may/may not have done wrong, perhaps you should look closer to home. Germany denying Austria lorry loads of facemasks, France confiscating sanitizers bound for the UK. The EU have yet to show any leadership on this and the 27 countries are in disarray.
as i've said elsewhere - it's global, and point-scoring and criticism in how other countries handle it is not the way to go. hey, but if it makes you feel better.
country:.............pop......cases....deaths...first case
Netherlands......18m.....8,600.....546.......Feb 27
UK.....................66m....14,000....759......Jan 28
i think our Govt have shown that by a methodical scientific approach cases and deaths can be minimized.
The Netherlands has been "infected" only 2/3 of the time and has 1/3 the population of the UK...yet already has a disproportionate rate of infections and death. I'd warrant that comparatively, the UK has acted in much better order.
AlbaNo1
The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe. You have to factor that into comparisons.
emrabt
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthusiastic see him messing up...big time.[/QUOTE]
There is a third group, I'm not a Boris fan (I defaced my ballot in the last election as i am unrepresented) but i also don't think any other party would actually be doing anything differently.
The Arrogant attitude around not doing enough is a cross party issue, hell let's be honest, it's a cross country issue.
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthusiastic see him messing up...big time.[/QUOTE]
There is a third group, I'm not a Boris fan (I defaced my ballot in the last election as i am unrepresented) but i also don't think any other party would actually be doing anything differently.
The Arrogant attitude around not doing enough is a cross party issue, hell let's be honest, it's a cross country issue.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]emrabt wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthusiastic see him messing up...big time.[/QUOTE]
There is a third group, I'm not a Boris fan (I defaced my ballot in the last election as i am unrepresented) but i also don't think any other party would actually be doing anything differently.
The Arrogant attitude around not doing enough is a cross party issue, hell let's be honest, it's a cross country issue.
[/QUOTE]
100% agreed.
instead of people trying to divide, we should all be pulling together. Even Corbyn's mask slipped today...three days of admitting the Govt had got it right and done everything he expected, then BOOM - today he takes the credit - claiming the Toryies stole all his election policies this week...FFS. churlish, mealy-mouth cretin!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-corbyn-public-spending-funding-boris-johnson-ifs-a9429546.html
then there's the Labour's Ian Lavery
" it's going to give the fantastic battalion of Labour Party members, community champions out there, a great opportunity of showing how Labour, and why Labour, is best when it gets on the front foot and best when it brings people together.
“We need to make sure that we do that and community organising - what a great opportunity it's going to give us." - disgraceful human being. he's probably (in a nutshell) summed up why i don;t feel i'll ever vote labour again,
It seems blatantly obvious that the corona-crisis is like a Rorschach test for politics, in the UK and around the world - Boris Johnson-fans see him doing a great job, people who aren't so enthusiastic see him messing up...big time.[/QUOTE]
There is a third group, I'm not a Boris fan (I defaced my ballot in the last election as i am unrepresented) but i also don't think any other party would actually be doing anything differently.
The Arrogant attitude around not doing enough is a cross party issue, hell let's be honest, it's a cross country issue.
[/QUOTE]
100% agreed.
instead of people trying to divide, we should all be pulling together. Even Corbyn's mask slipped today...three days of admitting the Govt had got it right and done everything he expected, then BOOM - today he takes the credit - claiming the Toryies stole all his election policies this week...FFS. churlish, mealy-mouth cretin!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-corbyn-public-spending-funding-boris-johnson-ifs-a9429546.html
then there's the Labour's Ian Lavery
" it's going to give the fantastic battalion of Labour Party members, community champions out there, a great opportunity of showing how Labour, and why Labour, is best when it gets on the front foot and best when it brings people together.
“We need to make sure that we do that and community organising - what a great opportunity it's going to give us." - disgraceful human being. he's probably (in a nutshell) summed up why i don;t feel i'll ever vote labour again,
AlbaNo1
Bypassing the population density stat because It doesn’t suit you
London is about 30% of cases with 13% population
Suit you sir
London is about 30% of cases with 13% population
Suit you sir
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]Unless the situation is apocalyptic, as it is in some parts of Italy and Spain, a total lock down is not a good idea, IMHO - as soon as you end it, the disease will pick up where it left off unless you'd keep the lock down up for literally years.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe. You have to factor that into comparisons.[/QUOTE] well, perhaps you should tell THomasQuinn this. He's a Dutch resident and is saying lockdowns are a bad idea. a complete lockdown in densely populated areas IS the way to fix this. also, let's say for instance that The Netherlands is "completely COVID-19 free for three months, - lockdown can be lifted,all borders and flights in/out will need to remain closed except to other COVID-19-free countries signing agreements to do the same thing.
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]Bypassing the population density stat because It doesn’t suit youLondon is about 30% of cases with 13% population Suit you sir [/QUOTE]i haven't bypassed anything. every country has a capital city with dense populations - thereby presenting one of two geographic disproportional stats. but, you either include the whole of a country, or you concentrate on capitals - either way, London still compares well with others.
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe. You have to factor that into comparisons.[/QUOTE] well, perhaps you should tell THomasQuinn this. He's a Dutch resident and is saying lockdowns are a bad idea. a complete lockdown in densely populated areas IS the way to fix this. also, let's say for instance that The Netherlands is "completely COVID-19 free for three months, - lockdown can be lifted,all borders and flights in/out will need to remain closed except to other COVID-19-free countries signing agreements to do the same thing.
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]Bypassing the population density stat because It doesn’t suit youLondon is about 30% of cases with 13% population Suit you sir [/QUOTE]i haven't bypassed anything. every country has a capital city with dense populations - thereby presenting one of two geographic disproportional stats. but, you either include the whole of a country, or you concentrate on capitals - either way, London still compares well with others.
AlbaNo1
I think a rural/ urban policy split would make sense but would be difficult for a centralised government to implement
My point on the density is only that you have to bear that in mind when judging the success of a governments approach. And also the average age of the population when looking at fatalities
I’m pretty much agreeing with you, just pointing out there could be more behind the headline stats
My point on the density is only that you have to bear that in mind when judging the success of a governments approach. And also the average age of the population when looking at fatalities
I’m pretty much agreeing with you, just pointing out there could be more behind the headline stats
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]My point on the density is only that you have to bear that in mind when judging the success of a governments approach. And also the average age of the population when looking at fatalities [/QUOTE]
i think you're correct in that it's hard to measure success - but we can go on like-for-like, ie Amsterdam v Madrid v London etc
and regardless. approximately 3 weeks after lock down we will hopefully see a fall in new cases.
as regards some of the areas worst hit:
Spain and Italy - there is a culture of extended family living arrangements. this must've significantly contributed to the early spread, and is borne out by the information from New York. The centre of the outbreak there appears to be Queens - a district comprising almost 30% Hispanic or Latino residents.
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]I’m pretty much agreeing with you, just pointing out there could be more behind the headline stats[/QUOTE]
there always is.
but the only assured way to fix this is a full lock down.
and this should only be lifted (domestically) once there have been no new cases for at least twice as long as the agreed infection/incubation period.
as regards cross border travel:
this should only be lifted with countries who are at the self same stage and applying the self same conditions upon travel.
i think you're correct in that it's hard to measure success - but we can go on like-for-like, ie Amsterdam v Madrid v London etc
and regardless. approximately 3 weeks after lock down we will hopefully see a fall in new cases.
as regards some of the areas worst hit:
Spain and Italy - there is a culture of extended family living arrangements. this must've significantly contributed to the early spread, and is borne out by the information from New York. The centre of the outbreak there appears to be Queens - a district comprising almost 30% Hispanic or Latino residents.
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]I’m pretty much agreeing with you, just pointing out there could be more behind the headline stats[/QUOTE]
there always is.
but the only assured way to fix this is a full lock down.
and this should only be lifted (domestically) once there have been no new cases for at least twice as long as the agreed infection/incubation period.
as regards cross border travel:
this should only be lifted with countries who are at the self same stage and applying the self same conditions upon travel.
thomasquinn 32989
If you're not even going to properly read my post, don't whine about it. I certainly find your personal attacks distasteful, and I'm not going to address all your party-political points.
I will point out a couple of really blatant fallacies that annoyed me more than your regular right wing talking points.
[QUOTE]on one hand you say Boris acted to slowly, then you say a total lock-down is not a good idea. what would you suggest? people can't be trusted to maintain social distance, so they have to be helped.
i believe our Govt acted taking the correct measures at the right time. - you can't make decisions until you have data to use. i bet even with your 20/20 hindsight you don't have a better plan. [/QUOTE]
Now I know for a fact that you can read, so this comments annoys me, because you clearly ignore all I wrote except the tiny bits you can latch onto out of context to do some more party-political whining. I was taking issue with the SPEED at which the restrictions were implemented. The UK waited VERY LONG to start closing down sites where masses of people gather. Much longer even than The Netherlands. Later on you come up with dodgy stats about numbers of infections and deaths when you know as well as I do that few people are tested and that there is no uniform standard and different countries test to different degrees, rendering those numbers useless in international comparisons. As you are, or ought to be, very well aware, I wrote that the measures taken are broadly the same the world over, because there is basically only one tactic to deal with a new, untreatable disease, which is slowing the rate of infection. I'll spell it out for you: I never said the measures were wrong, I said they were implemented TOO LATE. As you yourself pointed out, the first known infection in the UK came about a month BEFORE the first Dutch case - yet the UK implemented serious measures AFTER the Netherlands.
While preaching "instead of people trying to divide, we should all be pulling together", you are constantly engaging in party-political chest thumping and finger pointing, having a go at the EU, labour and touting that Boris Johnson is 'a real leader'. That's bitterly ironic and unbecoming.
This is why I don't engage in discussions of a political nature with you anymore - all reason and civility go out the window and you turn into an angry Tory fanatic who lashes out wildly at all who don't wholeheartedly support your views. There is just no possibility of a reasonable conversation with you whenever politics are involved, even tangentially, while you are a perfectly reasonable person when the topic isn't politics-related. That's an issue you really need to work on.
I will point out a couple of really blatant fallacies that annoyed me more than your regular right wing talking points.
[QUOTE]on one hand you say Boris acted to slowly, then you say a total lock-down is not a good idea. what would you suggest? people can't be trusted to maintain social distance, so they have to be helped.
i believe our Govt acted taking the correct measures at the right time. - you can't make decisions until you have data to use. i bet even with your 20/20 hindsight you don't have a better plan. [/QUOTE]
Now I know for a fact that you can read, so this comments annoys me, because you clearly ignore all I wrote except the tiny bits you can latch onto out of context to do some more party-political whining. I was taking issue with the SPEED at which the restrictions were implemented. The UK waited VERY LONG to start closing down sites where masses of people gather. Much longer even than The Netherlands. Later on you come up with dodgy stats about numbers of infections and deaths when you know as well as I do that few people are tested and that there is no uniform standard and different countries test to different degrees, rendering those numbers useless in international comparisons. As you are, or ought to be, very well aware, I wrote that the measures taken are broadly the same the world over, because there is basically only one tactic to deal with a new, untreatable disease, which is slowing the rate of infection. I'll spell it out for you: I never said the measures were wrong, I said they were implemented TOO LATE. As you yourself pointed out, the first known infection in the UK came about a month BEFORE the first Dutch case - yet the UK implemented serious measures AFTER the Netherlands.
While preaching "instead of people trying to divide, we should all be pulling together", you are constantly engaging in party-political chest thumping and finger pointing, having a go at the EU, labour and touting that Boris Johnson is 'a real leader'. That's bitterly ironic and unbecoming.
This is why I don't engage in discussions of a political nature with you anymore - all reason and civility go out the window and you turn into an angry Tory fanatic who lashes out wildly at all who don't wholeheartedly support your views. There is just no possibility of a reasonable conversation with you whenever politics are involved, even tangentially, while you are a perfectly reasonable person when the topic isn't politics-related. That's an issue you really need to work on.
brENsKi
@ThomasQuinn - you do wrong to accuse me of politicising this. if anything i've done the opposite. look at the Trump thread and this one. my main message - which i've now repeated several times (largely ignored), is we should ALL pull together, stop complaining about those in charge and support them. support their actions and follow instructions.
and FWIW - you are completely wrong. i say this ONE last time. just so that YOU DON'T carry on perpetuating your Tory Stereotype myth about me. something I DO take offence to.
here we go: ready? (and I shouldn't have to declare my voting history - just to prove a point to you).
>> I have voted in all 10 UK elections that I've been eligible to vote in
>> only 3 times have I voted Tory (this last one being after a long break to the previous time).
>> my background is Working Class Labour voting.
>> i vote with my head though - not my heart. so i can't keep voting for nonsense...much like the many in the Midlands & North (Labour's Red Wall) who voted against them this time.
>> i vote for the party that i think at that time will do the best by this country.
>> Brexit for me is not about being right wing - i voted for it, because I disagree with the growth and power-grab of the EU Govt - and all they currently stand for. this is NOT about being anti Europe and it's people - it's about the EU itself as a concept/project
>> most importantly, my calling it as i see it - is not political. you shouldn't be pigeon-holing people's views to fit your own argument. discuss the issues, not the politics. If i say i think Boris is doing well - it's because that's what I feel. As a six-time Labour voter (i did vote LibDem in 2010) - i'd be the first to criticise him if i felt he was doing wrong.
now if you don't mind - it'd be refreshing if you stopped peddling myths about my political viewpoints. oh and a of retraction said statements.
and FWIW - you are completely wrong. i say this ONE last time. just so that YOU DON'T carry on perpetuating your Tory Stereotype myth about me. something I DO take offence to.
here we go: ready? (and I shouldn't have to declare my voting history - just to prove a point to you).
>> I have voted in all 10 UK elections that I've been eligible to vote in
>> only 3 times have I voted Tory (this last one being after a long break to the previous time).
>> my background is Working Class Labour voting.
>> i vote with my head though - not my heart. so i can't keep voting for nonsense...much like the many in the Midlands & North (Labour's Red Wall) who voted against them this time.
>> i vote for the party that i think at that time will do the best by this country.
>> Brexit for me is not about being right wing - i voted for it, because I disagree with the growth and power-grab of the EU Govt - and all they currently stand for. this is NOT about being anti Europe and it's people - it's about the EU itself as a concept/project
>> most importantly, my calling it as i see it - is not political. you shouldn't be pigeon-holing people's views to fit your own argument. discuss the issues, not the politics. If i say i think Boris is doing well - it's because that's what I feel. As a six-time Labour voter (i did vote LibDem in 2010) - i'd be the first to criticise him if i felt he was doing wrong.
now if you don't mind - it'd be refreshing if you stopped peddling myths about my political viewpoints. oh and a of retraction said statements.