RayC

You agree that it's too big an ask of you to present a coherent argument? Fair play to you. That's a big admission ????

Of course we can't predict the future with certainty, but how can a rational decision be reached on whether a policy is desirable unless an estimate of its' effects are taken into account? Did you think Brexit was a good idea because you stuck your finger in the air and found that the wind was blowing from the East/ West/ North/ South (delete as appropriate) and that was proof enough? Germany is a federal republic comprising of states with a fair amount of autonomy, so I suppose you could informally label this nation, The United States of Germany? However, I doubt that it what you meant? By stating that the UK will not be subsumed into a 'Greater' Germany, I assume that you are suggesting that nations such as France, Italy, etc will? Any evidence to support this hypothesis? No, thought not.

I think one point may be that the waiting room is full and therefore it is necessary for people to queue outside. If so, this might lead to a secondary conclusion that it will take some considerable time for those people at the back of the queue to be attended to by a doctor/ nurse. Of course I have no way of proving the above and accept that one among many possible other explanations is that the waiting room is completely empty, that those queueing are sun-worshippers and that this is the best sun spot in Northampton. Personally, I find this explanation less likely. Hope this helps.

So how long will we have to wait for these perceived economic benefits? 10 years? 20? 30? Or maybe, these benefits simply do not exist. In the meantime, even a UK government body (OBR) estimates that Brexit has - and will continue to have - negative effects (on productivity). If you do decide to reply, it would be good if it contained a coherent counter argument.

Tory supporters only defence against the charge that the NHS has deteriorated progressively under their watch is to mock Diane Abbott. Says it all.

You're right about regional variations but it's still not a pretty picture anywhere and things are getting worse across the board https://www.nhsconfed.org/articles/what-latest-data-tell-us-about-ambulance-handover-delays https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/ambulance-response-times#about-this-data

I have no difficulty understanding Rees-Moog. Six years after the vote to leave the EU, and approaching three since we left and still no benefits. I'm not surprised you want to change the subject.

As I said, he is very articulate (and polite) - positive attributes - but he says little of substance. Like the rest of his ERG colleagues, when he speaks it is usually to blame the EU for all the world's woes. Point to any of his successes as 'Minister for Brexit Opportunities'.

I doubt that Corbyn would welcome a return to the politics of the 18th century.

For once I agree with you. As you say, the NHS is a complete mess and a change in culture is needed. Questions are, what is the government's strategy to deal with this and when will it initiate policies to effect these changes?

Rees-Moog announcing that he will leave Parliament would be better news. His preference for an 18th century dress code is his affair, what bothers me is his desire to reintroduce 18th century political economy to the UK. His articulation, eccentricity and politeness mask a very reactionary political character.

which again you do not address directly. Agreed In general, I agree but there are exceptions. For example, would you agree that a policy of positive discrimination was needed immediately after apartheid ended in SA? (How it was implemented and how it turned out is another conversation). In the UK, there was - still is - a lack of black representation in boardrooms. If two candidates - one black, one white - are basically of the same standard, isn't there a case to select the black candidate to redress the imbalance. That's racist, by definition. Agreed. By definition it is. Your fixation with the race issue does not allow you to accept that there may be times when affirmative action is needed, whether it be based on economic position, location or race, etc.

Far from it being me tying myself in knots, you would need to be Houdini at the top of his game to get out of the tangle that you have got yourself into in trying to dismiss affirmative action as a legitimate policy initiative. I'll be generous and assume that you are confusing me with another poster. I have not offered a solution to the relative underperformance of some kids from poor, white families as I have made no comment on educational performance in this context. Now you come to mention it, perhaps one solution to this particular problem would be to target policies towards this group? Unfortunately, I assume that you would be against this as it is affirmative action. Privilege isn't - and never was - based purely on race but it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant as you suggest. Unemployment, over-crowded housing, police checks, etc are all disproportionately higher among black groups. What should we do? Accept this as the natural order of things or investigate why this is the case? Affirmative action may (or may not) be one (part) of the solution, however, why dismiss it without consideration as you do? (Your words: Discrimination is never justified).

I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. At least that's the hard-line ERG candidate out of the running.

Affirmative action is, by definition, discriminatory as it favours one group - race, gender, religion, class, economic grouping, etc - over others. However, imo the more pertinent question is that justified? The Tory party's philosophy is 'Equality of opportunity'. It doesn't exist at the moment which is, presumably, one reason why their flagship strategy is 'Leveling Up'. Ignoring the fact that no Conservative seems to be able to define what policies this entails, if you 'level up' you must surely favour those at the bottom (at the relative expense of those above them). This is obviously a form of discrimination. Are you against 'Leveling Up'?

Two sporting beards, two spectacle wearers and a pipe smoker. How much more diversity do you want?????

I would have hoped that having had the Premiership unceremoniously ripped away from him by his own MPs, Johnson would, at least, now be able to act in a relatively normal manner now that he is free from the stress of trying to save his job. Sadly, based on today's PM Questions, his sacking seems to have pushed him over the edge. He called Starmer "Captain Crash-a-roony Snooze Fest". Nope, me neither.

You're right. It's nothing to do with being part of the EU, but I doubt that will stop the UK government trying to lay the blame on it.

Like most Tories, you seem obsessed with Diane Abbott. Unfortunately, you are surprisingly ill-informed about her position in the Labour party. She has not been on the front bench since Starmer took over in February 2020. Abbott is to the current Labour administration what Peter Bone is to the Tories. They would rather they were not there but they have to be tolerated. Neither has a cat's change in hell in featuring on the front bench .... Oh, hold on. ... I remain unconvinced about positive discrimination, but fair play to you for embracing such a woke, lefty liberal concept.

Abbott is not on Labour's front bench. I'm not sure who is currently in Cabinet as it seems to change on an hourly basis, but Raab, Truss, Rees-Moog, Clark, Patel, etc. Those individuals' presence is meant to reassure the UK electorate?

I wouldn't believe everything that you read in the left bias, woke MSM????

You're right, the first line of your first paragraph isn't that amusing. But you made amends with the first line of your second paragraph. That's an absolute cracker????

I don't find the Nazi hat/ Pritti Patel joke particularly amusing, and it's arguably in 'bad taste', but do those Conservative supporters now expressing faux outrage believe that a high-profile Tory such as Patel should be exempt from ridicule and satire because of her ethnicity? Bit of a lefty-liberal, Woke reaction, isn't it?

Perhaps the liberalisation of the Cannabis laws in Thailand wasn't such a good idea after all.

What is daft about asking (1) why Truss couldn't announce her candidacy from Indonesia and (2) what was so urgent that she had to be back in London asap? Your words about Truss' presence at the G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting "... having a chat with counterparts over tea & biscuits." That's meant to convey a sense of importance? Assumptions based on the evidence of your contributions. Unfortunately, I don't think that a stronger lens prescription. Best give up the attempts at insight????