Wes Tender

I've told you that I am totally dismissive of your comments about either of those politicians. In other words, I really couldn't give a damn what you think of them. Do please allow yourself the time for that to sink in. Isn't Corbyn a Marxist? What political philosophy do you think he follows? You sound a bit hot and flustered me calling him that. Is he a hero of yours?

Maybe you'll have the last laugh in 4 and a half years. Maybe Labour will eventually have cleansed themselves of the Momentum extremists by then,and provided that they don't campaign as the party to reapply to rejoin the EU, they might then stand a chance of being electable. I reckon that any smugness over Starmer might be tempered by your admiration for Adonis, which rather counts against you.

You couldn't find me saying either of those things, so you're floundering as usual.

You flatter yourself if you think that you insulting Tories offends me. I don't know you from Adam, and this is an anonymous football forum. You are entitled to express your opinions, and I am entitled to ignore them or disparage them, or express similar opinions about your leftie heroes. Get a grip on reality, mate.

Where have I said that Starmer is not an upgrade on the Marxist? Where have I stated that it doesn't matter whether the country has a strong opposition? I didn't, did I? I agree that expressing those opinions would mark me out as blindly tribal and narrow, but as I've never expressed those opinions, the charges don't apply, do they?

Is that freedom of movement of parts?

No, especially as it annoys you. It is very seldom that I use it against other posters, and if you are offended by me for my usage of Lib Dumbs, the Chinese virus, stuff like that, then my heart bleeds for you.

So let's get this straight; according to you, it's OK to hurl childish insults at public figures on here, but one can't express an opinion on posters here when one believes that they are being stupid/childish/hypocritical/wrong. It seems to me that you like to dish it out, but can't take it back. And where did I say that I took insults aimed at Hague and Boris personally? You're all over the place.

Oh dear. Says the hypocrite who calls Hague and Boris silly playground names as the basis for his argument.

I wouldn't suggest that myself, but which party is the one that favours positive discrimination in many other areas? Is it Labour by any chance?

Nor rich and posh either.

The argument appears to have gone over your head. You make the point that although Hague might have consistently bested Blair in the House during PMQs without affecting Blair's premiership, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Sir K Smarmy besting Boris equally won't matter much in the scheme of things. And as a Conservative, I certainly was never worried that Angela Rayner might have led the Party. She's a complete political lightweight.

It wasn't just about how sh*t Labour were. It was also that the party had lost touch with its traditional core support in their traditional industrial heartlands, which was largely pro-Brexit. As I already stated, Starmer did massive damage to that part of their vote with his flip-flopping and lack of any clear policy direction. I agree that it will be a lot closer next time, provided that Starmer rids his shadow cabinet of the residue of hopeless non-entities that survived from Corbyn's cabinet. But by the time of the next election, we will be well clear of the EU, whether with a FTA or via WTO, and the Conservatives will be judged on how they have handled the aftermath of that and the Chinese virus.

So he bears no responsibility at all as the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions for any failures occurring when he was in charge. Right. I'll remember that argument the next time that you call for the resignation of a minister/party leader because of the impropriety of minions/associates under them.

How quickly people forget what a horlicks he made of Labour's position regarding Brexit, when he was the shadow Brexit Minister. He played a massive part in bringing about Labour's humiliating defeat at the last GE. But maybe that was all part of the plan to rid the party of Corbyn and to take over as leader himself. Surely he wouldn't have deliberately have brought that about unintentionally?

Regardless of the backgrounds of the individuals, the fact remains that Hague regularly made a fool of Blair in the House. I don't see how your whataboutery changes the facts one jot. Whether Sir K Smarmy will consistently better Johnson in the House doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Only a minute percentage of the electorate watch PM's Questions and if they read reports about the exchanges in the media, they will only believe those that reflect their own political leaning, much as you have done yourself when it came to JB's post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8313447/Officials-Norwich-plan-test-140-000-residents-coronavirus-WEEK.html

It seems that both Southampton and Norwich are applying to have their whole populations tested on a weekly basis via mouth swab tests. Good idea if it can be implemented.

I'll stay in character then; suck it up snowflake.

No, the government are putting pressure on Barnier and the EU. You don't understand this negotiating lark, do you? Did the UK put pressure on the EU by passing a Bill, the Benn Surrender Act, stating that they would have to accept whatever agreement the EU were prepared to offer us? In simple terms, being prepared to walk away from a bad deal is back on the table, thank God. The "no deal" that is better than a bad deal, is WTO terms compared to what the EU are demanding, the bad deal, their level playing field rules, long term access to our fishing grounds, continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ and a worse deal than that already granted to Canada, S.Korea, Japan, none of whom do anywhere near as much trade with the EU as we do. Had we never been a member of the EU, never joined the so-called Common Market, would we be offered a better deal than those other countries, given the size of our potential trade market and proximity or not? Starmer cannot subsequently criticise the outcome of the government's negotiations in these talks without having laid out his own position, or else he would make himself look ridiculous. Even more ridiculous than he made himself look as the Shadow Brexit Minister, getting splinters in his bottom from his fence-sitting indecisiveness. As opposition leader, he has learnt his lesson, that he doesn't have that luxury.

Starmer refuses to call for the TP to be extended beyond 31st December. His change of stance since becoming leader is welcome. He no longer needs to be a Corbyn stooge; he can be his own man and is bright enough to realise when a cause is lost. Boris tells von der Leyen again that we will not be extending. How much more clarity do the EU want that they had better get a move on with trade talks, as the end of June will not be changing the time schedule from 31st December for a deal or no deal. The EU insist that talks will stall unless discussions on their priorities of fishing rights and a level rules playing field are allowed to proceed in parallel with trade talks and on aviation, energy and other core interests of ours. The hypocrisy in their position is breathtaking. When they were in talks with the grossly incompetent May and Robbins, the EU insisted that no talks on trade could be pursued until agreement had been reached on our payment into the EU slush fund, the Irish border question and the EU/UK citizenship residency question. There was no question of parallel talks then, (against the legal terms of Article 50), so we should remind them of that, and ask why things are different now. In any event, discussion on these things shouldn't take more than a few minutes. We have already told them that we will not be accepting their level playing field rules and that we will be taking back control of our coastal waters and setting out a fisheries policy that suits us on an annual basis, rather than the long term basis that the EU demands. If they are not prepared to accept that, then there is little point in wasting everybody's time further. If they want a trade deal with us, then that can be negotiated strictly on the basis that we will not accept a position of inferiority to that granted to other countries who agreed FTAs with the EU. The EU claim that our stance reneges on the non-legally binding political declaration that they originally placed before the hapless May and Robbins, but the situation has changed immeasurably since the general election, so we rightly feel no compunction to abide by it under the changed circumstances. I suspect that this false sense of superiority the EU has in these negotiations will mean that no progress will be made this week, with the EU blaming us for our intransigence, as usual. But as there will only be one more session before the end of June deadline for an extension, a sense of panic in the EU position will increase on a daily basis the closer the deadline gets. Beyond that, it is believed that a trade deal would have to be in place before October, in order that the bureaucracy can be organised before the end of December. As Barnier is so fond of pointing out, the clock is ticking, but it is he who needs to develop a greater sense of urgency.

Norway option

My son was not a catholic when he was there.

Son number 1 was there in the mid 90s. The school was very good at that time. Daughter was at the Atherley at the same time, which was also decent then.