Echo Dot

These are just common con artists but they do it all remotely they don’t actually leave China, assuming they’re even in China to begin with.

I’m a bit baffled by why anyone would give them money though, since even if you were guilty of a crime in China, the UK doesn’t extradite people to China because of their record on human rights, or lack thereof, so there wouldn’t really be any need to pay bail money anyway. Plus of course most people have never committed any crime in China, a lot of them will have never even been there or only been there as children.

Plus you pay bail money after you’ve been arrested, in order to get bailed, not before you’re arrested in order to prevent it.

Sure but it’s at the sacrifice of all the moderate votes. The conservative party was always a weird amalgamation of right of center and varying degrees of extremism. That big problem with reform is that they took all the extremists away leaving them only with the moderates, so obviously they chased after the extremists. This didn’t help them one jot and then they lost the moderates because of their extremist attitudes.

As a result they hemorrhaged voters from both camps.

They are still continuing to chase the hard right extremist option, so they will continue to lose voters.

She’s been told what the problem is and she is still advocating to continue the non-working strategy, while saying that the actual problem is that the thing that has won them many many elections in the past, is in fact the wrong way to go.

Got to hand it to her, she doesn’t like reality, critical thinking or common sense get in the way of her desires.

Please indicate the part where it’s acceptable to do the things he does and please indicate how the things he does are not fascist because he is absolutely unequivocably 100% undeniably a fascist and you’re arguing he isn’t presumably because you have some kind of vested interest.

Is it possible that you voted reform at some point and are now kind of feeling a bit guilty?

The reason fascism is actually on the rise in the west is because people like you see it and say it’s acceptable because it isn’t fascism and they therefore fine.

Oh good. I was just thinking there are not enough dictators in the world and we really do need a second Russia.

Good old USA providing yet again. Without you life would be boring. Probably longer too.

They are not simply scrapping and unpopular policy, they’re scrapping a policy they criticized from the start, long before it was evident to anyone else whether it would work or not. At the very least does this not demonstrate greater political acumen on Labour’s part?

They are the same if you have the political instincts of a woodlouse.

"They are all the same, is the battle cry of the politically apathetic, and always has been there’s nothing new about it now.

That’s my point really. Labour’s biggest risk is that the Tories become moderately reasonable again. Then they’d actually have to step up.

She’s probably going to write a second book about it.

Well they might have suspected based on exit polls but they definitely can’t have known.

I’m not holding out a lot of success initially, but there is the possibility that things like the unions and the more progressives within the Labour party will start to make enough noise that they well able to achieve something in a few years.

The same way that the likes of Ress Mog managed to pull the conservatives over to the right.

The Tories merging with Reform would be a terrible move for them. Any of their voters who would normally have voted for Reform would obviously continue to vote for the new amalgamated party, but all of the people who would previously stuck by the Conservatives, and have obviously rejected Reform as an option, would have nowhere to go.

UKIP disappeared because they were a single issue party.

But one of the main reasons that the conservatives are so unpopular is because they’ve been chasing the right and leaving the centralist politics basically defended, which is why Labour wandered over there, and they have clearly done well out of that.

Yeah. She has convinced herself that her complete failure is a result of a grand conspiracy. This conspiracy requires some of the most uncharitable and profit driven people in the world, to be bleeding heart liberals, which is why no one believes it.

Apparently a bunch of venture capitalists, economists and fellow politicians decided that, rather than making vast sums of money under her “brilliant” scheme, it was instead better to crash the economy just despite her.

The fact it was even close is ridiculous. She’s the most terrible MP and PM we’ve ever had and yet she got a large number of people to vote for her.

There’s something in the water over there.

I don’t see how that makes them vulnerable though. I can’t see the reform voters going back to the conservatives so reform are going to continue to split the conservative vote forever.

A recount is called if one of the sides requires one. Obviously if you only had a difference of 10 votes, it’d be daft not to demand recount, but technically it only happens if a candidate requests one.

Remember the votes are technically recounted already. They are counted three times, by three separate people, who don’t know what the other two people have found as results, so they cannot be influenced by their number. If all three people get the same answer, the count is probably correct, discounting incredibly bad luck, which is statistically unlikely.

If a recount is requested then three new people perform the task just to discount the possibility of collusion.

Oh good, so now Truss can now piss off too the US and moan about the apparent conspiracy that was against her all she likes, and it won’t inconvenience her constituents anymore.

And of course no one in the US will really care, because will have no idea who the hell she is.

The reason a lot of people voted against it was that there was a concern that if it was implemented the government would consider themselves to have taken action and would just shut down any talk about proportional representation by arguing that we already had it. Even though we wouldn’t have.

The theory was that by not voting for the weak source option the idea of proportional representation could be floated at a later date, and to be honest I actually agree with the analysis.