Damn, knew it wouldnt last 
Labour, and the Tories before them, said theyād do things (or not) that they had no intention of seeing through.
Itās all a game to all of them, say the right things to get the votes, then deal with the fallout once in power
Fucking hell, break out the pot noodles
Edit. Put it back in the cupboard
You absolutely can! I know of plenty of Asian gammons.
To what end?
I think there is a world of difference between lying to get in power when your intentions are to do good once there and you think thatās the only way to convince people to not vote against their own interests, and lying to get in power so you can feather your own nest once there.
That I think is the difference between Labour and the Tories.
Weāve just seen record numbers of people vote for Reform, despite them having an economic and social agenda that would devastate them. Honesty in politics is not going to get you anywhere.
Imagine if Trump did all the things he says he will.
Oddly many people seem to have decided that he didnt mean what he said.
Worker productivity has stagnated in the developed world in general over the past 20 years or so. The technological advancements that have come in that time appear to have increased distraction to the same degree they have enabled productivity so gains are wiped out.
May was technically Remain, but made very clear signals she was not committed to it and willing to show sympathy to the concept of Leave. I donāt remember anymore how much of this was known at the time vs how much we only came to understand through the various autopsies and āinside storiesā of what happened, but at least internally the Remain campaign came to know her as too unreliable to use in any capacity. Cameronās inner circle also understood this to be a conscious attempt to position herself as a better choice for PM to push through Brexit should it win than someone who led the effort to oppose it. That is why the suggestion that he stepped down was a ālieā is absurd. In our parliamentary system you cannot lead a party/government that doesnt want you there anymore.
The kind run by bleeding heart liberals. Pack of starving dogs would be my sentence.
Imagine if he doesnāt do all the things people tried to gaslight about?
Then he lied. Apparently Trump doesnāt lie.
I think you missed my point. The scare mongering regarding what he absolutley would do if elected might probve to not quite be 100% correct.
I can only go on what i heard him say, and he said a lot of pretty unpleasant stuff. People were happy to ignore it He made a lot promises from what i heard.
We can but wait
Context is key.
@Limiescouse has already made the point I was going to on May. She was technically on the remain side, but wasnāt a remainer (sheād been battling against free movement for years while at the Home Office). It was more a position of political expediency. Choosing to stay within cabinet when those ministers wishing to campaign for brexit left.
When Cameron stepped down, he made it known that some of the cabinet had not pulled their weight on campaigning for remain - and that included May.
The fact she became leader though, although popular within the party, was in some ways more of an accident. The leadership contest would have 5 candidates. Johnson was the clear favourite. However, he was betrayed by Gove, who publicly denounced him and announced his own candidacy. The manner in which that happened led to Gove losing his own support. Fox was I think caught up another expenses scandal, and Stephen Crabb was running on a relatively pro european platform, not that popular and probably plagued by the scandals that had led him stepping down from his frontline role several years before.
That left it a choice between Leadsom and May. Leadsom had received backing from Johnson, but had done little of note for such a high profile job, so was unlikely to win and withdrew from the contest before the vote could go to members.
This is just being silly. The leave campaign purposely and knowingly lied en masse. Nothing the remain side did even comes close to that. Both before the referendum and afterwards.
Like someone who claimed violence is committed because of a mislabeled pronoun vs someone who was genocide?
What does that mean?
The fact that someone stepping on dog shit cannot be compared to someone stepping on a landmine. Donāt the great democracies tell us we cannot decide on other peopleās behalf how they feel? If the guy stepping on dog shit feels itās as he stepped on a landmine, we should validate that. So if a person who was mislabeled pronoun wise says that is an act of violence, we should accept it like violence committed in warzones?
His logic is as his art it would seem
Extraordinary. I was under the impression that drugs were hard to find in your part of the world.
The most impressive part of that was that you thought it in your head, wrote it down, read it back, decided to press reply, and at no point did you notice that it was bollocks
My favourite bit is āsomeone who was genocideā.
Iāll give them the benefit of the doubt on the language, but the rest seemed a bit of a non sequitur.