Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HelenaExMachina

UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

Recommended Posts

It's not really a negotiation if there is no middle ground where everyone compromises on something and everyone comes out feeling like they got a reasonable deal. The whole success or failure of the anti no-deal venture rests upon someone(s) being willing to, in all likelihood, commit political suicide. Not much of a basis to create goodwill or trust.

In the game of thrones you win or you die, there's no middle ground...hmmm that sounds awfully familiar.

There is literally nothing Corbyn (and his faction) can do as PM in the space of a month. Especially if the membership of the coalition refuses to give him a parliamentary mandate to do anything other take those 2 actions. He can't pass any laws and he can't put any meaningful policies or regulations in place. The process of promulgating regulations (which does not require a vote in parliament) is a several months process that begins with policy analysis, discussion documents and regulatory impact statements, draft regulation, public consultation (of at least 2 months) and then issuing the regulation. If you can do all that in 6 months good luck. He could do emergency regulations but those would be immediately subject to judicial review and could not be implemented until the review was completed, by which time the GE will have been held and a new govt formed (with luck). 

Plus almost all of the time he's PM he will be in campaign mode, and there will be 5 weeks of campaigning in which parliament is dissolved. He won't really have a month of being in power. He will have whatever time the coalition agrees as necessary to secure an extension and set a date for a GE. I imagine any coalition agreement will require the GE to be called more or less immediately after the EU confirms the A50 extension, and I think the EU will grant the extension, on the basis there will be a GE, immediately upon request. 

At a guess I would say after the new coalition has been formed, give a week for the A50 extension to be requested and granted, and then a week for the GE to be called and parliament dissolved. If the coalition partners don't have that in writing as part of the coalition agreement they are complete fools and deserve whatever stunts Corbyn might be able to pull while he's PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ants said:

On a secondary note, I don't get this "Corbyn is just in to do two things" (stop no-deal and call a GE).  That's rubbish.  He would be Prime Minister for a month (or more) while the GE is organised and then run.  He would be running the government.  To pretend that this would entail nothing more than two decisions is a little bit naive.  

It'd be what we here term a Caretaker Government. Basically, signing stuff to keep the lights on, but not actually changing anything in the interim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that any Tories for Corbyn would have is that they would not just be ending their political careers, but also ending lifelong friendships.  That last point is often overlooked, when people wonder why MP's won't just switch to their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's not really a negotiation if there is no middle ground where everyone compromises on something and everyone comes out feeling like they got a reasonable deal. The whole success or failure of the anti no-deal venture rests upon someone(s) being willing to, in all likelihood, commit political suicide. Not much of a basis to create goodwill or trust.

In the game of thrones you win or you die, there's no middle ground...hmmm that sounds awfully familiar.

Except of course there is a middle ground, which we've been discussing.  The idea you win or die with no in-between is for naive school children.  The middle ground is someone other than Corbyn as care-taker prime minister.  Especially someone who is a Tory.  In this situation, everyone gets to stop a no-deal Brexit.  However:

  • Rebel Tories aren't committing as large a political suicide as they would be if Corbyn is Prime Minister.  Some who are in strong Remain areas may be able to run as independents or Lib Dems.  Hell, the Tory party might even let them run again if the likely alternative was losing the seat.  However, they know they are still doing HUGE damage to their 
  • Corbyn gets to say he stopped Boris ruining the country, aligned with the intention of the referendum (i.e. go out with a deal) and most importantly from his point of view gets a general election.  One moreover where the Brexit Party may split the Tory's votes.  But, he doesn't get to be Prime Minister.  
  • Lib Dems and SNP get to stop Brexit, but don't have their own representative in power.  And don't get a referendum on Brexit, which they would much prefer. 

That is a middle ground.  There is no reason for Corbyn not to do it.  The only reason is he believes that his "right" to be Prime Minister as representative of the biggest faction is more important than stopping no-deal, or he is that power hungry.  

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There is literally nothing Corbyn (and his faction) can do as PM in the space of a month. Especially if the membership of the coalition refuses to give him a parliamentary mandate to do anything other take those 2 actions. He can't pass any laws and he can't put any meaningful policies or regulations in place. The process of promulgating regulations (which does not require a vote in parliament) is a several months process that begins with policy analysis, discussion documents and regulatory impact statements, draft regulation, public consultation (of at least 2 months) and then issuing the regulation. If you can do all that in 6 months good luck. He could do emergency regulations but those would be immediately subject to judicial review and could not be implemented until the review was completed, by which time the GE will have been held and a new govt formed (with luck). 

Plus almost all of the time he's PM he will be in campaign mode, and there will be 5 weeks of campaigning in which parliament is dissolved. He won't really have a month of being in power. He will have whatever time the coalition agrees as necessary to secure an extension and set a date for a GE. I imagine any coalition agreement will require the GE to be called more or less immediately after the EU confirms the A50 extension, and I think the EU will grant the extension, on the basis there will be a GE, immediately upon request. 

At a guess I would say after the new coalition has been formed, give a week for the A50 extension to be requested and granted, and then a week for the GE to be called and parliament dissolved. If the coalition partners don't have that in writing as part of the coalition agreement they are complete fools and deserve whatever stunts Corbyn might be able to pull while he's PM.

Perceptions are important.  Corbyn would be nominating ministers, and would have 5+ weeks where they are in charge.  Can they do a whole lot?  Likely no.  But perceptions are important, and for 5+ weeks the ministers and Prime Minister would be Corbyn.  And once the GE is set in motion, then the coalition partners have no leverage anyway.  So Labor would have a 3-5 week window where anything that can be done by ministerial fiat can be done with no consequences.  That may be limited, but it would only take one change to blow up in the media that the other parties had let Labor do this.  

All of which can be avoided by having Ken Clarke or similar in charge.  Then if a Labor minister pulls a swifty, he can be blamed.  And nobody has put in the evil monster Corbyn in power.... (sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I assume they are remainer Labour MPs? What makes you think the Labour pro-brexit rebels will back either of them for PM? And then there is the Corbyn faction some of whom may well feel aggrieved in Corbyn's behalf that he was forced to do what no Labour leader should be forced to do. So there may be a larger bloc of Labour MPs unwilling to vote for someone other than Corbyn for PM tan the Labour Bloc unwilling to vote for Corbyn. Consider that Corbyn is probably ending his career as Labour leader if he lets someone else from Labour be the PM, that's a far bigger personal ask of him than telling him to stop being pathetic and let someone else be king for a day.

Clarke is a pro-EU Tory and the longest serving member of parliament. He won't stand for re-election. So he has no designs to stay on for much longer. Harmann is the senior Labour MP (longest serving female MP I think).

As for the Labour parliament faction, I think the number of actual Corbynista is fairly limited. They tried to oust him about three years ago. So of course there're the Long Baileys, but I'd think you win far more in the centre than you lose on the fringes of the Labour MPs.

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

How many Tory MPs need to come over to the coalition to overcome the Labour pro-Brexit Bloc who might oppose both the VONC and any coalition with a remainer as PM? If that's more than enough to give a +1 majority for a coalition then you might have the path to a solution. Can the Labour Caucus revolt against Corbyn and sack him as Leader?

Not that many. There are maybe 8 die hard leavers in Labour I think (somebody with a better view on Westminster can happily correct me on that number). However the the arithmetic still says, there are far more MPs opposed to Corbyn than that. Keep in mind, the Tory MPs are presumably already ending their political career by bringing down their Goverment. So what is JC superstar willing to sacrifice? I'd hope that somebody launches a leadership challenge if that game of chicken continues. I think this time they'd be better positioned to do it, than with this patheticly botched last one.

 

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The other calculation remainers need to make is whether they think Corbyn is willing to let the UK wind up with a no-deal Brexit. It's not much good playing chicken with someone who you think might actually be willing to smash into you, because you will have to be the person to swerve. I guess then that means you have to perform well enough that your friends agree that you held your nerve for long enough not to look like a coward. If he puts up a VONC and it doesn't pass, he gets to say he did his bit, but the Tory rebels lost their nerve and showed themselves for the cowards they are, choosing to stay loyal to a PM they despise than be loyal to the country. Corbyn might cry buckets of crocodile tears on 31 Oct, but there will still be a path to No.10 for Labour. They are more likely to prevent a no-deal with him as PM, than with him remaining the Leader of the opposition for the next 2 and a bit months, sitting on the sidelines decrying the evil of BoJo and watching the UK crash out of the EU.

That's the entire point. And why I think the probability for a head-on collission (aka no-deal) is quite high. Voting down the Goverment is one thing, that will happen rather sooner than later. The issue is to form that caretaker goverment, where you need somebody to be voted in with a majority across the House. I don't think it will be Corbyn. I'd consider it as likely, that a majority Labour MPs simply ignore his whining and vote somebody else in. Then he can whine about getting stabbed in the back. As mentioned above, I don't think his grib on the Labour MPs is as iron clad, as he likes to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems weird to me that the idea of Corbyn as caretaker PM for such a short time is seen as being reasonably unacceptable when Boris fucking Johnson is the current PM. How can anyone be considered unacceptable when that's your precedent.

It just strikes me as one of the ways the right in the UK, US and Aus have succeeded at casting left wing leaders in general as dangerous and far out radical. And I know Corbyn does actually hold certain strong stances that are further away from the current status quo but again I just have to say the comparison is to Boris Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It just seems weird to me that the idea of Corbyn as caretaker PM for such a short time is seen as being reasonably unacceptable when Boris fucking Johnson is the current PM. How can anyone be considered unacceptable when that's your precedent.

It just strikes me as one of the ways the right in the UK, US and Aus have succeeded at casting left wing leaders in general as dangerous and far out radical. And I know Corbyn does actually hold certain strong stances that are further away from the current status quo but again I just have to say the comparison is to Boris Johnson.

I think it's much easier to cast Corbyn as cray-cray when only 40 Labour MPs (out of 212) backed Corbyn in the last confidence vote. At least in Australia the leader of the left-of-centre party has been generally accepted and trusted by their own peers (although Latham was a notable exception!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if  the october Brexit is a no-deal, won't the UK just go back to the table and make new deals right away anyway?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, argonak said:

So if  the october Brexit is a no-deal, won't the UK just go back to the table and make new deals right away anyway?  

With whom?

The EU won't sign any deals with the UK unless the points from the WA are settled, namely the Irish border, citizens rights, and the UK's financial obligations.

Otherwise they'd need to start negotiating new trade deals pretty much from scratch. Ofc they will presumably try to get other countries to roll over existing EU trade deals, while those countries might want to wait and see how the UK-EU relationship pans out, or get some more concessions out of a pretty desperate for a deal (and weak) UK goverment, with not so much expertise in negotiating those deals themselves. Remember those EU trade deals were negotiated with a market of roughly ten times the size of the UK, so with much more power behind it. Of course they can run to the US and hope for a fair and balanced America First class trade deal. I have that odd feeling the colonists might not have the best interests of the crown at their hearts - this is gonna be fun for the farmer's in the heartlands, with very little heartbreak. India has made it clear if the UK wants a post-Brexit FTA with them, they want more FoM. Well, and there's always China.

So where would you go first? The relatively easiest FTA target would be Canada, but that would also take years to negotiate. Fun times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, karaddin said:

It just seems weird to me that the idea of Corbyn as caretaker PM for such a short time is seen as being reasonably unacceptable when Boris fucking Johnson is the current PM. How can anyone be considered unacceptable when that's your precedent.

Certainly BS Johnson is an appalling PM. But it is not difficult to imagine that a principled right of centre politician (if there is such a thing) might think that Corbyn is little better.

The prosecution case is that over the last few years Corbyn, for all his decent core principles, has shown himself to be an stubborn incompetent tin eared idealist with his head in the clouds and an infallible ability to screw things up by sticking on some obscure point at exactly the wrong moment. Plus he is surrounded by a coterie of hard left people who are managing him and carrying out their own agenda in his name. On top of that it is obvious that Corbyn considers Brexit as his lever to make himself PM, and does not care what the Brexit outcome is provided only that he gets to be PM (though his preference is obviously for some sort of Brexit).

Given that, you can see that while this hypothetical politician would never support Johnson, they might not be able to bring themselves to (even temporarily) support Corbyn either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paxter said:

I think it's much easier to cast Corbyn as cray-cray when only 40 Labour MPs (out of 212) backed Corbyn in the last confidence vote. At least in Australia the leader of the left-of-centre party has been generally accepted and trusted by their own peers (although Latham was a notable exception!)

While this is true, you still have Liberal leaders abandon the pretense that the need to win has anything to do with policy or what's good for the country. Morrison in Aus and BoJo have both said upon becoming PM that their most important thing to achieve is beating the opposition party leader.

Wildling - it was late at night and I don't think I was making my point as clearly as I'd like. I'm not intending to be making a defense for Corbyn, I'm arguing that there is a deliberate strategy at play and the way people are talking about Corbyn is an indication of the success of the strategy. It's derailing the parliamentary systems in the UK and Aus to make it all about the opposition leader being too dangerous and viewing it as a presidential style election instead. 

You see the similar thing going on in the US where all the Dem candidates are being asked what they'll do to reach across the aisle to Republican voters when there's never an expectation to do the same for the Reps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Boris is meeting Macron today, the most dubious EU leader when it comes to extending deadlines.

Do we think his strategy might be tomoiss off Macron so much that even if a GNU is out together, Macron will still refuse to extend the deadline whilst we have an election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, karaddin said:

You see the similar thing going on in the US where all the Dem candidates are being asked what they'll do to reach across the aisle to Republican voters when there's never an expectation to do the same for the Reps. 

There could be a good reason for that though. Trump managed to attract independent/traditionally Dem-leaning voters in 2016 (especially in the mid-west). As a matter of electoral maths, the onus is now on the Dems to show that they can either win those voters back or reach across the aisle to nab states that Trump is counting on (e.g. in Florida). 

In Aus, I don't think ScoMo was the only one running a negative campaign on his opponent's leader. The ALP was constantly criticising the Libs' leadership instability and it was a feature of the campaign ("He's my leader and I am ambitious for him!")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

So Boris is meeting Macron today, the most dubious EU leader when it comes to extending deadlines.

Do we think his strategy might be tomoiss off Macron so much that even if a GNU is out together, Macron will still refuse to extend the deadline whilst we have an election?

No.  The incoming EU Commission President has already stated she will agree to an Art. 50 extension if so requested and "good reasons are provided." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/15/ursula-von-der-leyen-makes-final-pledges-secure-eu-top-job

Nobody in the EU (including Macron) is keen to pull the trigger and force a No-Deal Brexit.  That's objectively bad for the EU, and it also allows the Brexiteers to blame the EU for their decision.  

The most significant outcome of these meetings is the domestic effect: 

The "30 day deadline" that BJ has fastened onto will now lead him telling Parliament that he is going to everything possible to avoid No-Deal, but Parliament needs to leave No-Deal on the table in order to give him leverage with the EU and as a worst case scenario.  His goal is to divide the opposition to No-Deal and prevent the anti-No Dealers from pulling the trigger now.  Few Tory MPs will want to vote no-confidence when the government is negotiating with the EU.  And the closer we get to Oct 31, the more the UK will have spent in preparation for No-Deal. 

BJ's closing argument on Oct. 14 when there is no deal in sight will be: yes - we need to resolve these issues.  Yes there must be a solution to the Irish border.  Let's just leave, and then we will continue resolving these issues asap, but we will have delivered on our manifesto commitment to Brexit, and I will call a GE so we have a solid majority to get new legislation through, including if needed a backstop compromise. 

Three weeks ago, I would have said there would be a solid majority for preventing No-Deal in Parliament.  Now the anti-No Dealers are divided into pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn, pro-VoC and anti-VOC, pro-new legislation and anti-new legislation. 

No-Deal Brexit is looking more likely every day. 

 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the previous extensions needed the agreement of all 27 regardless of the president's opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

IIRC, the previous extensions needed the agreement of all 27 regardless of the president's opinion

Correct.

While Tusk and Juncker were there as mediators and trying tog et some sort of consensus out of the 27, they were and are ultimately the ones that decide, whether it is time to pull the plug. Macron was the one pushing for no-deal to be done with the issue before the European Election.

Since that Election is in the past now, he might be a more relaxed about a further extension. So I'd think another extension is rather more likely this time around. But of course this extension after extension after extension without going anywhere can't go on forever. The Uk were given six more months with Tusk begging the UK not to waste it. Four of those have been wasted with that pointless Tory Leadership challenge (campaigning on nonsense for most parts), and the Tory party regressing by a few years and going back to Unicorn breeding. Johnson is now trying to sell that old incontinent donkey with a dildo glued to its forehead as aforementioned unicorn. While the now with just two months to go, the remainers in a rush of panic are trying to get their act together to avoid no deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 11:04 AM, The Marquis de Leech said:

Well, this is a new one. Not only getting my politics completely wrong, but somehow managing to invoke Godwin's Law too.
 

What about Godwim's law?  Do you think the far right doesn't exist?  lol.

The landmark study I presented here Iain Duncan Smith has long ago read, and he is now presenting even worse policies, do you get it? he knows full well what he's doing, and guess what he presented new policies when I started exposing him and other extreme rightwing Tories here, coincidence? He knows cutting benefits to people who are deep into their 70s who cannot work because of serious health issues but some illiterate scumbag has said they can.  All this makes you a Tory of the far right.

Your 'argument' concerning no Tories being aware of the genocide they are committing could be made in the very early days of Austerity before the landmark study I presented was published, though even then when you're arguing to the right of a centralist Tory like Ken Clarke who opposed Austerity in 2013 then you're deep in rightwing territory. 

I don't expect you to acknowledge this. This is as bad as it gets when we're in the minimum hundred thousand people being murdered and you're not acknowledging this instead you're giving some simpletons argument about not using the word genocide when you're either completely naive or far right obfuscator could make very early on before the genocide really began.  

Quote

Please see the 1948 Genocide Convention for more details on the term genocide. It's a term coined in the 1940s, precisely to cover what the Nazis were doing - and, no, disabled people or homosexuals don't count as a protected category.

I've seen it as much as you have.  Thank you for not mentioning trans people who I am one of, thank you for that, so as we're all not mentioned in the terms of Genocide convention of 1948, so we can't be genocided lol.  I learned something the convention needs updating.  It's good to talk to the far right, normal people learn what needs to be rectified "national, ethnical, racial or religious group"  pretty sure homo, trans and disabled and the old aren't covered at present.

 

Quote

(You may dispute as to whether this distinction is useful, but attempted extermination of particular groups - and only those groups - is what the word means. Note that it is possible to kill ten million people without being genocidal, while possible to be genocidal without killing anyone. I'll leave the latter as an exercise for the reader).

It is not what the word means at all, it is what the word means according to the Genocide convention of 1948 which was ratified against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the even darker days of homo trans, disabled and ageism, where Alan Turing (a genius) was given the choice by the British Justice  system of chemical castration or prison he chose chemical castration and subsequently committed suicide.  Yes those days.

Of course individual discrimination against homo, trans and disabled is illegal in law right now, the Genocide convention deals with nations, the convention needs to be updated not apologized for.

That you think the groups I mentioned can't be genocided and you're fine with this, using it as a 'argument' to say it is just mass murder, damn enough and your bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, karaddin said:

Wildling - it was late at night and I don't think I was making my point as clearly as I'd like. I'm not intending to be making a defense for Corbyn, I'm arguing that there is a deliberate strategy at play and the way people are talking about Corbyn is an indication of the success of the strategy. It's derailing the parliamentary systems in the UK and Aus to make it all about the opposition leader being too dangerous and viewing it as a presidential style election instead.

Agreed. As in various other countries, a section of the UK press is basically propaganda, constantly demonising the left and extolling the right. And it unquestionably has its effect. It is why BS Johnson has made it to PM. Like many in the UK I know people who uncritically read the Daily Mail/Telegraph/etc, and are convinced that Johnson is the destined saviour of the country. The parallels with Trump are extremely clear.

One not immediately obvious unfortunate consequence of this is that Corbyn, his team, and his supporters have stopped listening to any criticism whatsoever, attributing it all to that propaganda. (Indeed my opinion is that Corbyn stopped listening to anyone who disagreed with him on anything a long time ago.) That bunker mentality in his team, not taking on even constructive criticism from potential friends and allies, and scarcely even pretending otherwise, has worried and alienated many people. A lot of the issues with Corbyn stem from it. In my opinion it does genuinely make him potentially dangerous, thus only reinforcing the right wing propaganda.

Which is a big shame because the propaganda can and has been beaten, though it needs someone with a great deal more political ability than Corbyn. Instead we now have two polarised camps. The only glimmer of upside is that there does still seem to be a large number of people in the middle, not willing to join either camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Agreed. As in various other countries, a section of the UK press is basically propaganda, constantly demonising the left and extolling the right. And it unquestionably has its effect. It is why BS Johnson has made it to PM. Like many in the UK I know people who uncritically read the Daily Mail/Telegraph/etc, and are convinced that Johnson is the destined saviour of the country. The parallels with Trump are extremely clear.

One not immediately obvious unfortunate consequence of this is that Corbyn, his team, and his supporters have stopped listening to any criticism whatsoever, attributing it all to that propaganda. (Indeed my opinion is that Corbyn stopped listening to anyone who disagreed with him on anything a long time ago.) That bunker mentality in his team, not taking on even constructive criticism from potential friends and allies, and scarcely even pretending otherwise, has worried and alienated many people. A lot of the issues with Corbyn stem from it. In my opinion it does genuinely make him potentially dangerous, thus only reinforcing the right wing propaganda.

Which is a big shame because the propaganda can and has been beaten, though it needs someone with a great deal more political ability than Corbyn. Instead we now have two polarised camps. The only glimmer of upside is that there does still seem to be a large number of people in the middle, not willing to join either camp.

Corbyn is completely against a no deal Brexit and will give the British people a second referendum.  This is as FAIR as you can get.  You're not in the middle, you're far from it.  I answered all your 'questions' and you dismissed all my answers as 'irrelevant' lol, who exactly is the one who doesn't listen?  You.  Or more to the point you listen and think you can ignore when you're eviscrated lol.  You should seek help you're clearly a gaslighter.

Jeremy Corbyn is completely against a No deal Brexit, that is a FACT, he sees the EU Central Bank as applying pressure of reducing UK wages, a FACT, something you think you can dismiss by saying I didn't answer your question lol.  I answered it, and much more which you think you can just dismiss.  Sorry but they're not listening to you, you're playing a rightwing game for personal gain, again for you Jeremy Corbyn will give the people a second referendum, that's it, game over for your 'argument'.

Come back and explain how the Central Bank applying repeated pressure on the UK to lower it's populace's wages.  You can't, enjoy the rightwing which is where you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 5:20 PM, Paxter said:

I think it's much easier to cast Corbyn as cray-cray when only 40 Labour MPs (out of 212) backed Corbyn in the last confidence vote. At least in Australia the leader of the left-of-centre party has been generally accepted and trusted by their own peers (although Latham was a notable exception!)

It's pretty easy to cast someone as cray cray when they're digging up something from 2016 on someone who had only been leader for a matter of months.  All MPs have their preferences of a leader and only later after the realization your person or even you wont be leader do you then go for your second or third choice.  They saw a chance to get their preference elected, to get Corbyn out quickly as he'd only been leader for months.

It is Jeremy Corbyn's willingness to allow debate which allows people to take opportunities.  That he is still here should tell you everything about how he is viewed, that he is a man of intelligence and integrity.  Something which some sorely lack, thinking they 'know how the world really works' when they are actually the ones who make the world far worse.

Edited by Safiya
spelling mistake lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×