horsefly

Did you not manage to get to the second paragraph???

Oh dear! Now use your imagination for once and ask yourself, "What if the EU takes that attitude towards the UK?". Actually you don't need to do that, just read the report from the Food and Drink Federation on the 96% drop in exports to the EU from the UK dairy industry. Or perhaps read what the fishing industry think about their inability to sell their catches into the EU. Funny how you have had nothing to say about the collapse of these industries, or the many other struggling SMEs.

Oh dear! Another epic failure from Fools. You actually quoted the DAILY MAIL article I posted in responding with this BBC apology to James Dyson. Even the Mashco Piro tribe in the deepest Peruvian jungle would know that it is laughably stupid to post an apology from the BBC for an article written in the Daily Mail. What a thicko! But while we're still laughing, you can perhaps point out which bits of the Daily Mail article are wrong. To help out, here it is again: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9494273/Boris-Johnson-sent-texts-Sir-James-Dyson-saying-fix-tax-issue-staff.html Boris Johnson 'sent texts to Sir James Dyson saying he would "fix" tax issue for billionaire inventor's staff if they came to the UK to make ventilators during Covid pandemic' Billionaire tycoon Sir James Dyson wrote an official letter to the Treasury Asked for tax status of staff to remain same if they moved to UK from Singapore But in a private text, Boris Johnson told Sir James that he 'will fix it' himself The Prime Minister then added 'Rishi [Sunak] says it is fixed!! We need you here' Two weeks later, Rishi Sunak told MPs that those coming into UK to offer help during the pandemic would not see a change in their tax status It is the latest in a string of lobbying questions facing the Conservative Party Under the ministerial code - a list of rules laying out the conduct expected by ministers - 'a private secretary or official should be present for all discussions relating to government business'. Should a conversation happen without an official, 'any significant content should be passed back to the department as soon as possible after the event'. It also states that ministers should 'act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner' and 'must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias'.

Oh dear! You don't even understand your own sentences, "Every 'authority' (and I assume you are referring to the medical profession) on the subject recommends a balanced diet, which includes red meat because it is naturally rich in protein and low in salt." Can't say that surprises me in the slightest. Yet again, more pathetic, childish, misspelt insults in the hope you can avoid scrutiny of the litany of falsehoods you spew out with consistent regularity. Of course, I could engage in the childish game of claiming you sound suspiciously like so many of the other right-wingers on this site who also have an aversion to the facts, but I'll leave you alone in the playground with Swindon, RTB, Jools and your other best buddies. The crucial point is that your statement that "a balanced diet includes red meat" is untrue. Perhaps you should try "Googleing" [sic] a bit more often https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Googling google Past participle: googledGerund: googling misspell at will!

Simply not true. All the available evidence shows one irrefutably reduces one's chance of getting various cancers (but most importantly bowel cancer) by removing red meat from one's diet. No, I'm not advocating veganism or vegetarianism but simply dispelling your myth that "a balanced diet includes red meat"; that claim is factually incorrect. Whilst current NHS advice claims one can include 70 grams of red meat within a daily balanced diet, it certainly does not claim that red meat is required for a balanced diet. There is nothing nutritionally important in red meat that can't be obtained more safely elsewhere, especially protein which is available in a vast range of foods, be it from white meat, or grains and pulses etc. Indeed, as a source of protein red meat is an extraordinarily inefficient way to get protein into the diet of human beings. Red meat may well be tasty, but it is entirely inessential as a part of a balanced diet. Not only is red meat a proven carcinogen, its production contributes to massive environmental destruction through inappropriate land use (Brazilian rainforest destruction) and global warming. Indeed there is no plausible programme for reduction of global warming that doesn't also call for a massive reduction in the consumption of red meat. Just saying! https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/meat-nutrition/ https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-does-70g-red-meat-look https://www.climatecentral.org/news/studies-link-red-meat-and-climate-change-20264

Every authority on the subject says avoiding red meat is crucial in avoiding cancer. Apparently GAMMON is a particular danger.

Why did I know you would come out with such a ridiculous answer. Name me a a single trading relationship between two different markets where there isn't a customs border? It's built into the very notion of "two different markets" that there has to be customs regulations and a border (where those markets are physically contiguous) to prevent smuggling of goods, human beings, and other criminal activities. The very point of joining the EU single market was to get around this necessity. So are you now suggesting we rejoin the single market? Because that is the only way in which you can have no customs border. FFS you should at least be able to comprehend that obvious fact. So, assuming you do not propose we rejoin the SM, I ask again, where would you place the customs border?

Ok Einstein, tell us where the customs border should be.

Herman has answered those questions well so I'll just add a few footnotes to his points. I certainly agree with you that Labour needs to appeal to the working class communities that have voted Tory, but the issues are far more complex and nuanced than you indicate here. You make the serious error of conflating the fact that labour Party policies appeal to university educated people with the idea that those same policies are aimed fundamentally at those constituencies where such people predominate. Let me take one recent policy as an example; the proposal that all households should be provided with free internet access. This would have been a massive help to poorer families, especially those who can't currently afford to pay for such access. Just imagine how much difference it would have made to those families in coping with the crisis of the last year; they would have had access to essential online healthcare information and resources, and their children would have had access to essential educational resources. Actually you don't need to imagine because you can simply look at the role free internet access played in South Korea's excellent response to the Covid crisis. I could go on to point out how Labour Party policies quite clearly would be of benefit to working class families: NHS investment, redistribution of wealth, increase of the minimum wage, higher taxation for the wealthy, investment in social care, increased rights for workers etc, etc etc. Thus your question, " Do you think the party should put forward more policies of this style (family, flag) or that they should concentrate on the middle class vote in our university cities they’re currently strong in and leave the old working class vote to the Tories?" is an utterly false dichotomy, and is yet another example of attempting to set up an absurd straw man to knock down with ease. The problem for the Labour Party is a very traditional one; how to deal with the Tory Party's ability to exploit a peverse tendency in working class communities to turn the blame for their woes on other marginalised people in their communities rather than the people who have the power over determining the policies that affect them. The Hartlepool election provides a perfect example of the phenomena, interview after interview of voters saw the blame for their plight turned on Labour Party "failures" despite the obvious fact that the Tory Party has been in power for the last 10-years. The phenomena was excellently parodied by Johnny Speight in the sitcom "Till Death Us Do Part", proof that there is nothing new in the current tension between a Labour Party that has always been led by "progressive" university graduates and a working class electorate that has always embodied "conservative" (note the small "c") reactionary values. Couple that sitcom with the famous Frost Report sketch about class featuring Cleese, Corbett, and Barker, and you neatly sum up the difficulty Labour faces. Whatever one thinks of Blair's reign over the Labour Party, he had the nous and pragmatism to recognise the nature of this problem and refused to allow himself to be drawn into the Tory trap of fighting on the ground of those working class "conservative reactionary values". Instead he bigged up Britain and got on with pumping huge amounts of money into education, the NHS, and poverty relief, and secured 13-years of Labour rule. If (and it's a big "if") the Labour Party can once again recover that pragmatic attitude, it will have ample opportunity in the future to recover the faith of working class communities that it is capable of serving their best interests. An economic sh*t storm awaits the country in the wake of a disastrous brexit deal and bungled Covid response, the Labour Party can exploit those failures if it develops the will to do so.

You truly are as thick as sh*t aren't you.

Old gammon head just can't give up on his QAnonce lies. Remind us how many court cases were brought showing voter fraud you old loon.

Always happy to see fraudulent and criminal politicians held to account: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mps-investigated-for-lobbying-judges-before-elphicke-hearing/ar-BB1gBlE7?ocid=uxbndlbing

Glad you find political corruption so funny thicko!

FFS dumbo the issue isn't about the cost. Jesus Christ!!!

Guess what Johnson once said about ID cards: "“If I am ever asked,” Boris Johnson once wrote of ID cards, “on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded I produce it.” https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/johnson-the-civil-libertarian-wants-to-have-his-voter-id-card-and-eat-it/ar-BB1gC0hm?ocid=uxbndlbing

No I don't want precious parts of the countryside to be sacrificed to property developers who want to build highly expensive houses on crammed estates. I've seen enough of those in Norfolk already. There are huge numbers of sites already purchased by developers that have had nothing built on them for many years. Once those have been built on then the government should be looking to develop inner city and brownfield sites. But we all know that developers are not interested in anything other than prime countryside to maximise their profits. Of course it is no coincidence whatsoever that property developers are major contributors to Tory Party funds.

Meanwhile Johnson seems to be determined to destroy the countryside beloved by many Norfolk folk: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/johnson-s-planning-laws-an-utter-disaster-say-countryside-campaigners/ar-BB1gCd6V?ocid=msedgntp I expect Jenrick might need to contemplate opening a Swiss bank account to cope with the "donations" rolling in from developers.

I rest my case

Basically Frost is admitting that he and Johnson either lied to the UK public, or were so incompetent that they signed a deal without realising its disastrous consequences for the UK. Personally i would plump for the Latin use of the inclusive "or" (vel) in this particular case.

Yep! I'm afraid the RWNJs use the same glaringly obvious tactic for almost every issue: set up an obviously absurd straw man argument that no one in reality has actually presented, knock it down, and claim victory. Sadly for them no one is remotely impressed or fooled by such an immature approach.

The effects of brexit are completely relevant to the career of a Tory leader who lied about it to the voting public in order to cheat his way into power. The disastrous economic consequences of brexit will undoubtedly remain very significant given Johnson's claims that it is a wonderful deal. I'm afraid your claims in the last few posts have been soundly refuted and you can't escape that fact by simply expressing your boredom with the issue.You are not obliged to respond to any other person's post on the matter of Johnson's culpability for the brexit disaster, but the idea you have any authority to demand others stop discussing the issue is both absurd and arrogant.

Just how many of the UK's Islamic fundamentalist terrorists arrived in the country via EU "free travel" regulations? I think one will find they were pretty much exclusively "home grown".

I'm afraid this is simply wrong.You need to go on-line and check the number of SMEs and other businesses that are complaining that a drastic drop in exports is entirely down to brexit. Only last week I posted a report from the Food and Drink Federation that showed the dairy industry had lost £1.1bn in export trading with the EU since January due to brexit regulations (96% down). These are real figures not speculative nonsense. Similarly it is brexit regulations that have decimated exports from UK fishermen. I suggest you go to the Road Haulage Association site too and see what they have to say. Brexit regulations are the issue, not Covid regulations.

Oh dear! Your exceptional levels of ignorance displayed yet again.

They can empty the bin but it will still stink.