Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
yorkie1999

Also in the news

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Lionator said:

Everything is so extreme in politics at the moment.

 

The Left are all communist, lazy, student, anti-semitic scumbags.

The Right are all racist, coffin-dodging facists.

The Centre, well this is all of their fault in the first place. 

 

There is no compromise, no common ground, be nice to each other. 

Now that hardline Brexiters are joining local parties and trying to deselect 

moderate Tory MPs in much the same way that Momentum has done in the

Labour Party things will probably get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Tbh he’s probably best not to get the poisoned chalice anyway. He’d likely be a good future prospect to pick up the pieces when Brexit has gone tits up.

I really don't think he would be and I'm not sure he even cares, he just wants to be PM and hell with the consequences is what it comes across as, I'm just reading his interview today in the Sunday Times and there is nothing in it except nonsense soundbites like "that 39billion is ours" - this isn't going to be helpful when it comes to negotiating and if that IS his position then he should be honest and come out and tell us he'll go for No Deal if it comes to it.

He's also just been locked away by the looks of it for this leadership election, refusing to turn up for debates presumably to avoid saying something ridiculous that destroys his chances, it's just laughable. If he can't win a leadership contest fairly putting himself forward then how can he lead the nation through this crisis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I notice the article doesn't mention that two of Murdoch's papers backed Remain, can't think why?

TBF they should have included that as him hedging his bets and winning either way, as it would have added to their argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Yet Jeremy Corbyn is the devil incarnate if he wears the wrong clothes.

Years ago I did a cartoon of Margaret Thatcher as Satan, brandishing a trident, complete with horns on her head and the legs of a goat.

If I still had it I would love to post but try as I may I fear that it was one of the many things my ex threw out.

I did it long before the days of the internet so I don't think I am likely to be confronted with it online.

Never mind, I am busily sharpening my pens to have a go at someone else.

Will post if he is still in the news next week.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBF they should have included that as him hedging his bets and winning either way, as it would have added to their argument.

Problem is it also destroys the argument. 

 

Murdoch only cares about selling papers and being on the popular side of opinion - hence the absolute love for Labour in the Blair years and the love from the Scottish Sun towards the SNP.

 

If the Lib Dems were on 65% in the polls the Sun would be supporting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Problem is it also destroys the argument. 

 

Murdoch only cares about selling papers and being on the popular side of opinion - hence the absolute love for Labour in the Blair years and the love from the Scottish Sun towards the SNP.

 

If the Lib Dems were on 65% in the polls the Sun would be supporting them.

I thought the article was about shaping the world - making sure you can play both sides and have influence no matter which party is in power at any one time is being in a good position to do exactly that, I would think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

I really don't think he would be and I'm not sure he even cares, he just wants to be PM and hell with the consequences is what it comes across as, I'm just reading his interview today in the Sunday Times and there is nothing in it except nonsense soundbites like "that 39billion is ours" - this isn't going to be helpful when it comes to negotiating and if that IS his position then he should be honest and come out and tell us he'll go for No Deal if it comes to it.

He's also just been locked away by the looks of it for this leadership election, refusing to turn up for debates presumably to avoid saying something ridiculous that destroys his chances, it's just laughable. If he can't win a leadership contest fairly putting himself forward then how can he lead the nation through this crisis?

 

You've started talking about Johnson when quoted post was about Stewart wasn't it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

You've started talking about Johnson when quoted post was about Stewart wasn't it?

Completely got the wrong end of the stick lol

 

Apologies @WigstonWanderer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MattP said:

In terms of intelligence and competence in this leadership race, Rory Stewart is so far ahead of this field it's embarrassing. 

 

It's a shame his Brexit policy will cost him as he'd make a very good PM.

Nah I've swayed and decided he's a Foreign Secretary and not a PM. Probably a bit Theresa May on policy too. 

 

Think it should be Jeremy Hunt tbh. Gove is utterly useless on the economy (seems like May he doesn't care for economics; scrapping VAT ffs) and realistically those two are about the only two (Javid maybe) that should be contenders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I'm just reading his interview today in the Sunday Times and there is nothing in it except nonsense soundbites like "that 39billion is ours" - this isn't going to be helpful when it comes to negotiating and if that IS his position then he should be honest and come out and tell us he'll go for No Deal if it comes to it.
 

 

In effect, Boris has already said he'd back No Deal, hasn't he? He committed to leaving in October, with or without a deal. Given the near impossibility of anyone securing a new deal by October, there's only a Rizla between that and a No Deal stance.

 

Before, I couldn't see the logic in his stance, as it seems clear Parliament would bring down a Govt that seeks No Deal in October, triggering a general election as neither Corbyn nor another Tory could form a stable majority.

On current polls, that looks like madness for the Tories.....but I wonder if Boris wants to have a general election, thinking he can win it - and I wonder if he might be right?

 

Most polls currently have Lab, Con, Brexit Party & Lib Dems all between 20% and 29%. Most have Labour or Brexit Party ahead, with Tories trailing. Unpredictable under FPTP, but suggests a Tory massacre & a possible Corbyn minority govt.

 

But to shift that dramatically, all Boris needs is to win back a decent chunk of the Brexit Party vote.

 

Boris could make unreasonable demands, call for No Deal in October if the EU doesn't meet them, triggering a general election....and then campaign on a Hard Brexit policy, blaming the EU for intransigently rejecting his proposals and blaming "the Remainer Parliament" for blocking Brexit. Given his personal appeal to certain sections of the electorate and their desire to "get Brexit done" (either wanting or accepting No Deal), doesn't that win back a decent chunk of the Brexit Party vote?

 

Under those circumstances, I could easily envisage an outcome like this: Con 30-35%, Lab 25-28%, LD 20-25%, Brexit Party 15%......yielding a majority Tory Govt for Boris. :S

 

What he'd do then, and how the EU would respond, I'm not so sure:

- He could backtrack & extend the negotiations after some weasel words about a new deal from him and/or the EU

- The EU might "blink" and agree to re-negotiate the WA (highly unlikely, I suspect)

- He could go ahead with No Deal in October, blaming EU intransigence & May's mishandled negotiations for the disastrous outcomes (and I do believe it would be disastrous - not just Project Fear this time), while flinging out lots of nationalist-populist rhetoric about our proud nation standing together as it did in WW2 (like the fifth-rate Churchillian scammer that he is)....

 

This also shows the importance of the battle within Labour over the second referendum. If Labour unequivocally, if "regretfully", backs a referendum, it probably recovers a chunk of the vote it has lost to the Lib Dems, blocking Boris' path.

Unfortunately, Corbyn seems determined to hold out for an election, with a referendum only a back-up option never to be used - and the Peterborough result has strengthened his hand. Hard to see how Watson, Starmer, Thornberry & co can shift him before party conference.....by when a general election might already have happened and yielded a Boris-led Tory Govt.....

 

That could all yet be derailed if Tory MPs block Boris getting into the last 2, or if he says/does something outrageous (entirely possible), or if enough voters opposed to No Deal vote tactically if there is an election (Lab-LD switchers etc.)....

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if @bovril is set to get a better run for his money? It was you that bet on Javid as next PM, wasn't it?

I see that Ruth Davidson has publicly backed Javid, which should boost his campaign.

 

Will be interesting tomorrow to see which of the 11 contenders bow out after failing to get 8 MPs to back them - and whether any late contenders enter the fray.

 

I saw a Telegraph article suggesting that none of Stewart, Gyimah, McVey, Leadsom or Harper yet had 8 backers.

I imagine that Gyimah & Harper might be gonners, but I'd be astonished if Stewart & at least one of McVey & Leadsom didn't make it. There'd be no female candidate if that happened, wouldn't there?

I wonder if one of McVey & Leadsom might drop out in favour of the other - & there are surely enough anti-No Deal Tory MPs to keep Stewart in the contest for now?

 

I presume that tosser Steve Baker won't be standing now, as he's backed someone else. But I wonder if someone like Mordaunt or even Hammond might enter the fray - they've not ruled it out, have they?

 

It's going to be like a particularly stomach-churning penalty shoot-out watching this contest play out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

I wonder if @bovril is set to get a better run for his money? It was you that bet on Javid as next PM, wasn't it?

I see that Ruth Davidson has publicly backed Javid, which should boost his campaign.

 

Will be interesting tomorrow to see which of the 11 contenders bow out after failing to get 8 MPs to back them - and whether any late contenders enter the fray.

 

I saw a Telegraph article suggesting that none of Stewart, Gyimah, McVey, Leadsom or Harper yet had 8 backers.

I imagine that Gyimah & Harper might be gonners, but I'd be astonished if Stewart & at least one of McVey & Leadsom didn't make it. There'd be no female candidate if that happened, wouldn't there?

I wonder if one of McVey & Leadsom might drop out in favour of the other - & there are surely enough anti-No Deal Tory MPs to keep Stewart in the contest for now?

 

I presume that tosser Steve Baker won't be standing now, as he's backed someone else. But I wonder if someone like Mordaunt or even Hammond might enter the fray - they've not ruled it out, have they?

 

It's going to be like a particularly stomach-churning penalty shoot-out watching this contest play out....

Yeah I had a fiver on him before he launched his bid. 

 

I quite like the idea of having a leader of the country that can speak Farsi and Pashtun but I got the feeling from Rory Stewart's books that he exaggerates a lot of his story and I've met someone working for the BBC world service that his language skills are not quite as good as he makes out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the next general election, maybe we''ll have a Conservative/Brexit Party coalition government, to prevent Comrade Corbyn, John 'Mao' Donnell, and Diane Abacus from ruining the economy and just about everything else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I wonder if @bovril is set to get a better run for his money? It was you that bet on Javid as next PM, wasn't it?

I see that Ruth Davidson has publicly backed Javid, which should boost his campaign.

 

Will be interesting tomorrow to see which of the 11 contenders bow out after failing to get 8 MPs to back them - and whether any late contenders enter the fray.

 

I saw a Telegraph article suggesting that none of Stewart, Gyimah, McVey, Leadsom or Harper yet had 8 backers.

I imagine that Gyimah & Harper might be gonners, but I'd be astonished if Stewart & at least one of McVey & Leadsom didn't make it. There'd be no female candidate if that happened, wouldn't there?

I wonder if one of McVey & Leadsom might drop out in favour of the other - & there are surely enough anti-No Deal Tory MPs to keep Stewart in the contest for now?

 

I presume that tosser Steve Baker won't be standing now, as he's backed someone else. But I wonder if someone like Mordaunt or even Hammond might enter the fray - they've not ruled it out, have they?

 

It's going to be like a particularly stomach-churning penalty shoot-out watching this contest play out....

He’s my local MP. Have to say, he’s a pretty underwhelming constituency MP but I guess he has his mind set on higher things. 

Specialises in keeping his nose clean, avoiding conflict and saying what his audience wants to hear in order to gain and hold on to power. I imagine I’ve just described the majority of parliament there ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Yeah I had a fiver on him before he launched his bid. 

 

I quite like the idea of having a leader of the country that can speak Farsi and Pashtun but I got the feeling from Rory Stewart's books that he exaggerates a lot of his story and I've met someone working for the BBC world service that his language skills are not quite as good as he makes out. 

 

I'm always dubious about anyone claiming great fluency in lots of languages - though I've not read anything Stewart said in that regard.

I'm sure there's the odd freak genius, but most people who supposedly have great linguistic skills probably speak 3-4 languages well (max) and can get by in a number of others....& only remain good with a lot of regular practice.

 

As he's spent significant time in the Middle East and Afghanistan, I'm sure he has some command of those languages......but how much, unless he's been practicing them intensively in his spare time ever since?

I studied French, Spanish & Portuguese to degree level, but in the latter two I'd now struggle to do more than order food/accommodation or have a very basic conversation....might pick up again if I spent a couple of months living over there.

I can still understand written texts well (with dictionary access) because I've been doing that work for 20 years, but oral ability is quickly lost unless you're a genuine genius and/or learnt the language intensively at a very young age - presumably the reason why my oral French holds up better (learnt at school & very early adulthood).

 

I know you've spent a lot of time in Italy and the Balkans so how many languages would you say that you speak well? No need to reply if you're feeling bashful or don't want to boast! :D

 

Even if Stewart has exaggerated his abilities (and it might be others, like friends/editors/publishers?), he still seems to be one of the rare examples of a politician who seems properly equipped for high office (ignoring political disagreements). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm always dubious about anyone claiming great fluency in lots of languages - though I've not read anything Stewart said in that regard.

I'm sure there's the odd freak genius, but most people who supposedly have great linguistic skills probably speak 3-4 languages well (max) and can get by in a number of others....& only remain good with a lot of regular practice.

 

As he's spent significant time in the Middle East and Afghanistan, I'm sure he has some command of those languages......but how much, unless he's been practicing them intensively in his spare time ever since?

I studied French, Spanish & Portuguese to degree level, but in the latter two I'd now struggle to do more than order food/accommodation or have a very basic conversation....might pick up again if I spent a couple of months living over there.

I can still understand written texts well (with dictionary access) because I've been doing that work for 20 years, but oral ability is quickly lost unless you're a genuine genius and/or learnt the language intensively at a very young age - presumably the reason why my oral French holds up better (learnt at school & very early adulthood).

 

I know you've spent a lot of time in Italy and the Balkans so how many languages would you say that you speak well? No need to reply if you're feeling bashful or don't want to boast! :D

 

Even if Stewart has exaggerated his abilities (and it might be others, like friends/editors/publishers?), he still seems to be one of the rare examples of a politician who seems properly equipped for high office (ignoring political disagreements). 

My Italian is about C1 level, spoken Bulgarian about B2/C1 but because it's mostly written in Cyrillic my reading is quite slow and writing incredibly slow (especially on a keyboard). I could put on my CV that I have intermediate level Macedonian which is essentially the same language and I understand Russian and Serbo-Croat.

 

I'd like to learn Portuguese. I've met a lot of Brazilians in London and found I could understand a lot of isolated words in their conversations. It has a great rhythm, especially Brazilian Portuguese.

 

I am sure Stewart exaggerated a bit but the fact he seems to be able to hold a conversation in Farsi is impressive enough. Like I said, I'd be pleased for our PM to be someone with a flair for languages as obviously most Brits have a reputation for being pretty crap in that field, although we have had great linguists and translators. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bovril said:

 

I'd like to learn Portuguese. I've met a lot of Brazilians in London and found I could understand a lot of isolated words in their conversations. It has a great rhythm, especially Brazilian Portuguese.

 

 

I can relate to this. I've never been to Brazil and have spent time in Portugal, yet find Brazilian Portuguese much easier to understand aurally - due to the rhythm, I presume (not much rhythm in European Portuguese).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

I can relate to this. I've never been to Brazil and have spent time in Portugal, yet find Brazilian Portuguese much easier to understand aurally - due to the rhythm, I presume (not much rhythm in European Portuguese).

I've heard that Brazilian Portuguese is stress-timed (like English) and the European version syllable-timed, maybe why it's easier to follow. Although I've never totally understood the whole syllable / stress timing phenomenon and find it quite dubious. I always thought a European Portuguese accent sounds almost Slavic at times and I had a Portuguese colleague in Sofia who had far fewer issues with pronunciation in Bulgarian than I did. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bovril said:

I've heard that Brazilian Portuguese is stress-timed (like English) and the European version syllable-timed, maybe why it's easier to follow. Although I've never totally understood the whole syllable / stress timing phenomenon and find it quite dubious. I always thought a European Portuguese accent sounds almost Slavic at times and I had a Portuguese colleague in Sofia who had far fewer issues with pronunciation in Bulgarian than I did. 

Yeah I thought it was a weird claim at first but it's definitely a real phenomenon determining how a language is naturally delivered by its native speakers.  It's most obvious when a person is putting emphasis on a specific word because a syllable based speaker will stress every syllable equally whereas we would stress only certain key sounds.  For instance take the word "abominable":  Spelled exactly the same in both English and French but we would deliver it almost like we're stumbling over the word whereas a French person would retain a steady pace throughout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...