It's not just about Brexit

[dsr]

I remember having a discussion on here in months/years past where dsr, I think, was sure that water standards in the UK were high because of the UK driving the standards, not the EU. Given previous court cases it was already pretty difficult to make such a claim, it's going to be even trickier now.

I suspect I was talking about tap water, not river water.

[martin_p]

I suspect I was talking about tap water, not river water.

Nope. You said (on a now locked Brexit thread)

‘ I don't think that the River Boards Act 1948 was forced on us by the EU, nor yet the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, or even the Water Act 1973.

I reckon that cleaning up the environment has become the thing to do, and the thing that has been done, both inside and outside the EU. For example, Norway in the seventies was polluted - the fjord at Oslo had similarities with the Thames - but it has since been cleaned up. Were they forced into it by the EU, or was it something that all European counties have been dong anyway?’

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... r#p1117459

[AndrewJB]

Nope. You said (on a now locked Brexit thread)

‘ I don't think that the River Boards Act 1948 was forced on us by the EU, nor yet the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, or even the Water Act 1973.

I reckon that cleaning up the environment has become the thing to do, and the thing that has been done, both inside and outside the EU. For example, Norway in the seventies was polluted - the fjord at Oslo had similarities with the Thames - but it has since been cleaned up. Were they forced into it by the EU, or was it something that all European counties have been dong anyway?’

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... r#p1117459

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ames-bevan

That might be about to change..

[dsr]

Nope. You said (on a now locked Brexit thread)

‘ I don't think that the River Boards Act 1948 was forced on us by the EU, nor yet the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, or even the Water Act 1973.

I reckon that cleaning up the environment has become the thing to do, and the thing that has been done, both inside and outside the EU. For example, Norway in the seventies was polluted - the fjord at Oslo had similarities with the Thames - but it has since been cleaned up. Were they forced into it by the EU, or was it something that all European counties have been dong anyway?’

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... r#p1117459

Thank you for that. So, for clarity, what I said was that water standards had been improving for years before we were in the EU; the implication being that they would have continued to improve anyway.

[martin_p]

Thank you for that. So, for clarity, what I said was that water standards had been improving for years before we were in the EU; the implication being that they would have continued to improve anyway.

But that has been proved to be wrong as there’s now a suggestion we lower the standards so that more of our rivers pass, these being European standards that clearly go further than ours from pre-EU days.

[Spijed]

Seems the government is starting to panic:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-o ... -9srgwm5kh

[clarethomer]

Seems the government is starting to panic:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-o ... -9srgwm5kh

Or it's a way to get the equally belligerent EU to realise that we want to discuss trade as we have no interest in trying to give them a level playing field.

One man's 'panic' is another man's realisation of if you are not making progress, lets do something different to try and make progress.

[JohnMcGreal]

Or it's a way to get the equally belligerent EU to realise that we want to discuss trade as we have no interest in trying to give them a level playing field.

These negotiations just show that one party is certainly holding all the cards, and it isn't us, despite Michael Gove's previous claims.

If we want generous access to their single market, and loads of other nice things like equivalence for financial services, we're going to have to play by their rules. The EU 27 are not stupid. They know they've got us over a barrel here, and can quite easily demand that their level playing field, state subsidies and fisheries concerns are satisfactorily resolved before they go any further in the talks.

If we don't want to sign up to those things, that's fine. That's our choice. We're free to do as we please. The consequence of that means we'll be trading and dealing with the EU on fairly terrible terms from January, which will hurt us badly.

The question then is, where do we go from there? How many weeks will pass in 2021 before we're back at the table in Brussels, desperate to resolve the escalating crisis at home? When that inevitably happens, what do you think the EU will demand before getting into deeper discussions on trade? Level playing field, state subsidies and fisheries.

The things we are balking at in these negotiations will not magically disappear in January. The EU will still demand that they're resolved next year, after we've left with no deal.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Do any Brexit supporters question what happened to the “Oven Ready” Brexit deal that was parroted throughout the election campaign?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Do any Brexit supporters question what happened to the “Oven Ready” Brexit deal that was parroted throughout the election campaign?

Hope Boris hasn’t taken it to his tent.

[Spijed]

Or it's a way to get the equally belligerent EU to realise that we want to discuss trade as we have no interest in trying to give them a level playing field.

One man's 'panic' is another man's realisation of if you are not making progress, lets do something different to try and make progress.

But the fact that it's the UK government trying to force the issue suggests we have blinked first and it's more in our interests to get a deal than it is for the EU.

We've never held all the cards and it's never likely we ever did have a good hand.

[aggi]

Do any Brexit supporters question what happened to the “Oven Ready” Brexit deal that was parroted throughout the election campaign?

It's probably in the same place as the social care plan that he claimed to have ready.

[clarethomer]

But the fact that it's the UK government trying to force the issue suggests we have blinked first and it's more in our interests to get a deal than it is for the EU.

We've never held all the cards and it's never likely we ever did have a good hand.

Blinking first would be to indicate we were ready to give unfettered access to our waters for fishing, or be prepared to accept the EU level playing field.

We have allegedly presented the legal text/framework for a free trade deal but the EU won’t discuss that until these things are sorted.

Nobody is blinking yet as far as I can see.

We will still be trading with the EU come 1/1/21.

[martin_p]

Blinking first would be to indicate we were ready to give unfettered access to our waters for fishing, or be prepared to accept the EU level playing field.

We have allegedly presented the legal text/framework for a free trade deal but the EU won’t discuss that until these things are sorted.

Nobody is blinking yet as far as I can see.

We will still be trading with the EU come 1/1/21.

No one has claimed trading will stop just that it will be slower and more expensive. Whether all the companies that do trade with the EU can cope with that remains to be seen.

[Spijed]

It's probably in the same place as the social care plan that he claimed to have ready.

Or the shovel ready homes that wont get built

[clarethomer]

Keep the faith lads.

The way you think the country is going- it won’t be long until you get the utopian government you think could exist.

[CombatClaret]

Strange that Wrongo is no longer sharing the Government's approval rating. When a lot of people were pointing out the clusterfudge that was the Covid response in March-May it's all he had as a diversionary response.

In truth the spike in support was a physiological byproduct due to large numbers of the population fearing for their very lives and looking to any form of power to protect them:
The rally 'round the flag effect (or syndrome) is a concept used in political science and international relations to explain increased short-run popular support of a country's government or political leaders during periods of international crisis or war.

approval.jpg (143.76 KiB) Viewed 2062 times

[tiger76]

Do any Brexit supporters question what happened to the “Oven Ready” Brexit deal that was parroted throughout the election campaign?

Yes i certainly do, but what's even worse than that is the fact that Johnson is still trying to unpick the WA, so much for "getting brexit done" as he promised, and the "easiest trade deal in history" as Michael Gove pledged, if the UK(assuming the UK is intact for much longer) wants unfettered access to the single market, which I assume we'd all agree is desirable, then we'll have to make concessions along the way, that's how negotiations work, you reach a compromise that both sides can live with, if the Tory government continue down this path of pursuing a damaging no-deal, then they'll pay the price at the next election, yes people voted to leave in 2016, but very few voted to crash out without a deal, and that was barely mentioned during the referendum campaign, so how come suddenly there's a perception amongst the Conservatives that no-deal is the default position, if they genuinely want a no-deal then they should get the assent of the public before proceeding down that road.

[aggi]

Seems the government is starting to panic:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-o ... -9srgwm5kh

Personally I think it's a reasonable tactic. Bypass the current negotiation with a tempting offer and hopefully sow some discord amongst the EU countries' leaders.

The splits that a lot of Brexit fans have been predicting haven't happened yet but maybe this will prompt something.

At the worst it probably isn't damaging the negotiation.

[RingoMcCartney]

Strange that Wrongo is no longer sharing the Government's approval rating. When a lot of people were pointing out the clusterfudge that was the Covid response in March-May it's all he had as a diversionary response.

In truth the spike in support was a physiological byproduct due to large numbers of the population fearing for their very lives and looking to any form of power to protect them:
The rally 'round the flag effect (or syndrome) is a concept used in political science and international relations to explain increased short-run popular support of a country's government or political leaders during periods of international crisis or war.

approval.jpg

A week is a long time in politics.

[clarethomer]

I don't pay too much attention to any data that comes out around things like voting sentiment/popularity etc as they are often just a snapshot of one moment in time and that sentiment will ebb and flow over the coming, days, weeks, months and years.

We have seen these polls be proven incorrect too many times before.

I won't believe them even if they were showing favourably to the way I was thinking for the above reasons.

We have had the debate over what has been said - just need to accept that no matter how many times you raise the point and it's discussed the conclusion is the same. You will believe you were right, some will agree with you and some will think you are wrong and disagree. Its good to raise different points in a discussion but to keep coming back to throwing 'soundbites' and 'snippets' doesn't add anything to it.

[martin_p]

I don't pay too much attention to any data that comes out around things like voting sentiment/popularity etc as they are often just a snapshot of one moment in time and that sentiment will ebb and flow over the coming, days, weeks, months and years.

We have seen these polls be proven incorrect too many times before.

I won't believe them even if they were showing favourably to the way I was thinking for the above reasons.

We have had the debate over what has been said - just need to accept that no matter how many times you raise the point and it's discussed the conclusion is the same. You will believe you were right, some will agree with you and some will think you are wrong and disagree. Its good to raise different points in a discussion but to keep coming back to throwing 'soundbites' and 'snippets' doesn't add anything to it.

It what sense is a graph showing a downward trend since April ‘a snapshot in time’?

[clarethomer]

It what sense is a graph showing a downward trend since April ‘a snapshot in time’?

Yes - a snapshot in time. Clearly you need this spelling out.

It looks like that data is taken frequently as I can see the % for each survey which seems to take place over 2 days each week.

The 71% disapproval of Theresa May and her government was registered on 22nd - 24th June 2019. Follow the graph and you will find a % of the sentiment being recorded each week and the graph then tracks each response each week.

We see disapproval of the Government drop on the Election where Johnson wipes the floor against Corbyn and the far left.

We see disapproval of the Government drop further as the pandemic kicks in and this government puts in all the schemes to protect the public and jobs etc.

We see disapproval of the Government increase as people start to better understand the pandemic and we start to see things like the Dominic Cummings and the exams fiasco.

I don't pay too much attention to any data that comes out around things like voting sentiment/popularity etc as they are often just a snapshot of one moment in time and that sentiment will ebb and flow over the coming, days, weeks, months and years.

So tell me again where i was wrong in what I was saying or are you just more intent of trying to pick at anything you can?

If you are trying to say that people have lost faith in this government and you have faith in this type of data - why not look at the UK Polling Report

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 22.00.46.png (289 KiB) Viewed 1973 times

[martin_p]

Yes - a snapshot in time. Clearly you need this spelling out.

It looks like that data is taken frequently as I can see the % for each survey which seems to take place over 2 days each week.

The 71% disapproval of Theresa May and her government was registered on 22nd - 24th June 2019. Follow the graph and you will find a % of the sentiment being recorded each week and the graph then tracks each response each week.

We see disapproval of the Government drop on the Election where Johnson wipes the floor against Corbyn and the far left.

We see disapproval of the Government drop further as the pandemic kicks in and this government puts in all the schemes to protect the public and jobs etc.

We see disapproval of the Government increase as people start to better understand the pandemic and we start to see things like the Dominic Cummings and the exams fiasco.



So tell me again where i was wrong in what I was saying or are you just more intent of trying to pick at anything you can?

If you are trying to say that people have lost faith in this government and you have faith in this type of data - why not look at the UK Polling Report

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 22.00.46.png

Why do your voting intention stats stop in May just at the time the government’s popularity was bombing? Actually I’ve just answered my own question.

Here’s a more recent poll

49C5F61F-D584-42FF-B84A-BD49269B19A4.png (58.87 KiB) Viewed 1958 times

[clarethomer]

I just posted the first set of stats I found on google. Nothing being selective. Purely to prove a point that different stats will tell different stories. I don't subscribe to them.

I don't read anything into any of these stats whatsoever, as what counts - is what is counted at the ballot box. Those stats could show Labour ahead of the tories, it doesn't matter - no one can vote.

As some food for though - there were polls saying there could be as little as a 2 point gap leading into the election last year and look where that ended up.

Thats right - nowhere near what the polls were saying. They are a waste of time.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Pretty sure the Polls were stating a win for remain, and comfortably, prior to the referendum.

That's one of the reasons why they've been so badly hurt by the loss, they were convinced they were the winners ahead of it.

[clarethomer]

Yep I think that people got fed up of hearing from the remainers about what they wanted and being called gammons and racists so they either kept quiet about how they were voting, or just gave the impression they were voting remain to avoid being called out.

[Spijed]

I just posted the first set of stats I found on google. Nothing being selective. Purely to prove a point that different stats will tell different stories. I don't subscribe to them.

I don't read anything into any of these stats whatsoever, as what counts - is what is counted at the ballot box. Those stats could show Labour ahead of the tories, it doesn't matter - no one can vote.

As some food for though - there were polls saying there could be as little as a 2 point gap leading into the election last year and look where that ended up.

Thats right - nowhere near what the polls were saying. They are a waste of time.

If polls are a waste of time why do all the political parties do internal polling to see what the public view of various news events are and shape their policies accordingly?

[clarethomer]

To understand sentiment. To try and understand their campaign strategy.

Still doesn't answer why it is often wrong though does it. So answer that question - if the data was so reliable, why did labour have the election result it did? Why did the referendum polling end up being wrong?

[martin_p]

Pretty sure the Polls were stating a win for remain, and comfortably, prior to the referendum.

That's one of the reasons why they've been so badly hurt by the loss, they were convinced they were the winners ahead of it.

Well I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.

EU referendum poll tracker http://www. ... m-36271589

While remain had a decent lead at the start of the campaigning the trend was always shifting to leave and on the day before the referendum the polls had it pretty much as a dead heat with some giving leave a narrow lead and one giving remain a narrow lead. So a 52/48 result was entirely within the accuracy limits of the polls.

[Burnley Ace]

Why do your voting intention stats stop in May just at the time the government’s popularity was bombing? Actually I’ve just answered my own question.

Here’s a more recent poll

49C5F61F-D584-42FF-B84A-BD49269B19A4.png

The worst government that has ever been in power is still on 40%? The Lib Dem’s may as well just give up!

[RingoMcCartney]

Coronavirus: England death count review reduces UK toll by 5,000 - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53722711

Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:12 pm

Name one person, just one person in the whole world, in any country you like , that right now, has all the available facts at their disposal, regarding the 2019 Covid 19 global pandemic. Who can therefore, draw objective conclusions and assessments and be in a strong position to name and shame who got it right and who got it wrong.

We now know that anyone claiming they had all the facts , didn't. Any conclusions theyd arrived at were premature and based on wrong information.

Is Ringo really trying to build an argument based on the number of fatalities being irrelevant?

Post Sat May 16, 2020 11:34 am

No.

I've also said that using the raw mortality rates to draw conclusions and judgements on the UK government's handling of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic crisis, while we're still in the middle of it is premature, uninformed potentially dangerous and a fools errand.

We now know that the mortality rates were wrong. Anyone using them was uninformed.

Post Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:39 pm

So I'll let time pass to a calmer time in the future when Public Health England's role will be scrutinised to ascertain whether they were upto the job.

Public Health England 'set to be scrapped and replaced over Covid-19 response'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/ ... 25831.html


Public health England couldn't even count the mortality figures. They've been scrapped!


If only more people had listened to the message board crystal ball keeper.

3 mystic birds. 1 mystic stone.

[AndrewJB]

Coronavirus: England death count review reduces UK toll by 5,000 - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53722711




We now know that anyone claiming they had all the facts , didn't. Any conclusions theyd arrived at were premature and based on wrong information.






We now know that the mortality rates were wrong. Anyone using them was uninformed.



Public Health England 'set to be scrapped and replaced over Covid-19 response'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/ ... 25831.html


Public health England couldn't even count the mortality figures. They've been scrapped!


If only more people had listened to the message board crystal ball keeper.

3 mystic birds. 1 mystic stone.

Government blames just about everyone else to avoid scrutiny of their utter uselessness. High death toll, and worst hit economy. Johnson managed a lose lose.

[Devils_Advocate]

The govt replace PHE in the midst of a health pandemic and replace it with a new institute headed up by a Tory peer with no experience in public health whose track record is a disaster including most recently presiding over the (privately outsourced) Test & Trace debacle.

The fact that Dido Harding has already been appointed Chair of the new National Institute of Health Protection without any open, transparent selection process destroys the reputation of the new Institute before it even starts.

To top it off her Tory MP husband sits on the advisory board of think tank 1828. Their manifesto recommends replacing the NHS with an insurance system.

But guess what the bootlickers are still celebrating this as a victory.....unbelievable

[TheFamilyCat]

Only 41,000 deaths.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

"Public health England couldn't even count the mortality figures."

Ringo proves again that he can't read.

[ksrclaret]

What a sickening post from Ringo celebrating how great he is. I’m sure that will be a great comfort to the 40,000+ families who’ve lost loved ones to the virus.

[RingoMcCartney]

Only 41,000 deaths.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

"Public health England couldn't even count the mortality figures."

Ringo proves again that he can't read.

I think not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53722711

"The new methodology for counting deaths means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 comes down from 46,706 to 41,329 - a reduction of 12%.

And figures for deaths in England for the most recent week of data - 18 to 24 July - will drop by 75%, from 442 to 111.

Prof John Newton, director of health improvement at Public Health England (PHE), said: "The way we count deaths in people with Covid-19 in England was originally chosen to avoid underestimating deaths caused by the virus in the early stages of the pandemic."

But he said the new methods of calculating deaths from the virus would give "crucial information about both recent trends and the overall mortality burden due to Covid-19".

It seemed very odd when we learned last month that PHE's figures included everyone who had tested positive, even if they died months afterwards and their death may have had another cause.

[RingoMcCartney]

What a sickening post from Ringo celebrating how great he is. I’m sure that will be a great comfort to the 40,000+ families who’ve lost loved ones to the virus.

No celebrating whatsoever. Simply pointing out that I said it was too early to judge the performance of the government when nobody had all the information to make any conclusions. (It transpires that the basic data was flawed) That the role and competence of public health England would have to be scrutinised. Using (proven to be incorrect) raw mortality rates was a blunt instrument and a fools errand whilst slap bang in the middle of a pandemic.

I've been proven right on all 3, related, issues.

[martin_p]

No celebrating whatsoever. Simply pointing out that I said it was too early to judge the performance of the government when nobody had all the information to make any conclusions. That the role and competence of public health England would have to be scrutinised. Using raw mortality rates was a blunt instrument and a fools errand whilst slap bang in the middle of a pandemic.

I've been proven right on all 3, related, issues.

The total will come from the ONS stats on those that had Covid on their death cert, that hasn’t changed and unfortunately is somewhere in excess of 50k.

[RingoMcCartney]

The total will come from the ONS stats on those that had Covid on their death cert, that hasn’t changed and unfortunately is somewhere in excess of 50k.

That may be so. Doesn't change the fact that I was right to say what I said. On all 3 related issues.

[TheFamilyCat]

I think not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53722711

"The new methodology for counting deaths means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 comes down from 46,706 to 41,329 - a reduction of 12%.

And figures for deaths in England for the most recent week of data - 18 to 24 July - will drop by 75%, from 442 to 111.

Prof John Newton, director of health improvement at Public Health England (PHE), said: "The way we count deaths in people with Covid-19 in England was originally chosen to avoid underestimating deaths caused by the virus in the early stages of the pandemic."

But he said the new methods of calculating deaths from the virus would give "crucial information about both recent trends and the overall mortality burden due to Covid-19".

It seemed very odd when we learned last month that PHE's figures included everyone who had tested positive, even if they died months afterwards and their death may have had another cause.

What is your understanding of the words "new method"?

[TheFamilyCat]

No celebrating whatsoever. Simply pointing out that I said it was too early to judge the performance of the government when nobody had all the information to make any conclusions. (It transpires that the basic data was flawed) That the role and competence of public health England would have to be scrutinised. Using (proven to be incorrect) raw mortality rates was a blunt instrument and a fools errand whilst slap bang in the middle of a pandemic.

I've been proven right on all 3, related, issues.

You've been calling PHE incompetent for months. Not too early for that, presumably?

[ksrclaret]

No celebrating whatsoever. Simply pointing out that I said it was too early to judge the performance of the government when nobody had all the information to make any conclusions. (It transpires that the basic data was flawed) That the role and competence of public health England would have to be scrutinised. Using (proven to be incorrect) raw mortality rates was a blunt instrument and a fools errand whilst slap bang in the middle of a pandemic.

I've been proven right on all 3, related, issues.

Sadly you’ve allowed your desire to get one over anonymous posters on an Internet forum to cloud the empathy and outrage for the care home policy you ought to have for the 40,000+ who have succumbed to the terrible virus. So much so that you now see PHE taking 5000 off the death toll as a personal victory (these people are still dead by the way).

But that’s the risk you run when you, as an ordinary member of the public, allow politics to consume you and to become your entire personality. One day you’ll grow up and realise that there are isn’t a single politician who gives a shiny shite whether you live or die, not even your blue- eyes Tories. It’ll be a harsh lesson but one sorely needed.

Anyway, I’ll you get on with it. Congratulations again. Never let a good crisis go to waste eh.

[TheFamilyCat]

Sadly you’ve allowed your desire to get one over anonymous posters on an Internet forum to cloud the empathy and outrage for the care home policy you ought to have for the 40,000+ who have succumbed to the terrible virus. So much so that you now see PHE taking 5000 off the death toll as a personal victory (these people are still dead by the way).

But that’s the risk you run when you, as an ordinary member of the public, allow politics to consume you and to become your entire personality. One day you’ll grow up and realise that there are isn’t a single politician who gives a shiny shite whether you live or die, not even your blue- eyes Tories. It’ll be a harsh lesson but one sorely needed.

Anyway, I’ll you get on with it. Congratulations again. Never let a good crisis go to waste eh.

What was his little phrase? "Dont let a crisis go to waist (sic)."

[ksrclaret]

What was his little phrase? "Dont let a crisis go to waist (sic)."

Ah yes. I like to think he was giving lifestyle advice on how to avoid piling on the pounds after a difficult breakup.

[tiger76]

Do people still want to actively pursue a no deal given this potential fallout in the winter?https://uk.yahoo.com/news/leaked-govern ... 0874.html

[dsr]

Do people still want to actively pursue a no deal given this potential fallout in the winter?https://uk.yahoo.com/news/leaked-govern ... 0874.html

Terrifying, isn't it. If it was only the threat of flu, a second wave of coronavirus, floods, economic crisis, and port blockages, we'd be fine and hunky-dory and not a care in the world. But add Brexit to the list, and we're supposed to panic.

[CombatClaret]

Conservative Party used disinformation ‘with new level of impunity’ during 2019 general election, report finds

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82566.html

Their report said Tories had “employed overt disinformation” to secure votes, such as by altering a video of Sir Keir Starmer and posing as a fact-checker on Twitter during a leaders’ debate.
“Even if some of these tactics are not novel, the impunity with which they were employed appears new, at least in the UK,” it added.
“When found out, Conservative Party representatives were unapologetic for rebranding their Twitter account as a fact-checking site, and for editing video footage of the interview with Sir Keir.”

[clarethomer]

Do people still want to actively pursue a no deal given this potential fallout in the winter?https://uk.yahoo.com/news/leaked-govern ... 0874.html

I don't want us to actively pursue a no deal.

However, if the EU won't give up harping on about their prescious protectionist level playing field and fisheries being agreed first then I am happy we go with a no deal.

Given all the grief given on here about how the exams were planned for and the apparent lack of planning involved. When we do this for worst case scenario - I thought there would be some plaudits from the tory haters.... nah...who was I kidding.. Look forward to more tory bashing...

[Devils_Advocate]

Gove's idea of Brexit sounded much more reasonable when he was in snake oil salesmen mode

https://twitter.com/i/status/1271404904872116226