Jenny1

I suspect Sanders couldn't have won though. He'd have been too leftwing for most Americans.

I agree Robert Poste's Child. Our only hope is that Republican Senators and Congressmen are able and willing to put some kind of brake on him.

I think you're right keano77. US isolationism could plunge us all into a much worse economic situation.

Surely most of this is attributable to the financial crash in 2007-8. There was always a risk after that of a 1930s style resurgence of extremism and 'populism'. In order to avoid it you'd have needed diligent government focusing fully on social equality - we certainly didn't get that in this country.

Anyone else googling 'What does it take to impeach a President of the United States?' ?

Putin's a fan, isn't he? Probably having a party right now. But as some analyst said the other day .....Trump's complete unpredictability means that even Russia isn't on safe ground. One day they could simply cross a line they didn't even know was there....

That makes interesting reading ianr. Thanks for posting the links.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I asked him if he was still angry and he > said yes, but couldn't explain it. > Yvette Cooper's piece for the Huff Post talks about this kind of anger. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/article-50-high-court_b_12811676.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

In response to the multiple choice options offered by jaywalker - I think b and c (and hence not even really aware of d).

I'd agree rahrahrah. Anyone who doesn't do balance, complexity or detail does well in this context.

I agree with those who say that social media has a lot to do with it. I don't think that's just because people's sources of information have become limited and self-reinforcing, but because social media is an environment which tends to exaggerate the value of the emotional, personal and particular over the intellectual and general. So feelings matter more than facts. I also think that we're living through a 'populist' age which seeks simple answers to complex questions. I'd maintain that has a lot to do with the fall-out from 2008. Many people in the US and UK have been left wondering if 'the powers that be' are willing, or even able, to protect them from insecurity and instability. 'Radical', easy, non-factual solutions become more attractive under those circumstances.

I wouldn't see it as class warfare. I know 'posh' people who voted Leave.

why so personal? Probably because it's irreversible and the stakes are so high. I think it gets to the root of people's sense of identity and vision for the future (for themselves, the country, and even the world as a whole). That's quite a powerful mix.

To be clear the above was written in response to Jules-and-Boo's point. To address some of what you're saying robbin. We've all learnt, I'm sure, to take what politicians (of any persuasion) say with a pinch of salt. But don't you think there was something disturbingly different about the Leave campaign's tactics? I perceived them as adopting a style of campaigning that we don't usually get in this country? I'm thinking about their insistence, for example, that 'we're not interested in experts anymore'. Don't you think that shifted the debate onto dangerous ground?

Are we not all vulnerable to being 'tricked' by politicians? I'm sure you can think of many examples of that happening over the years. I know I've been 'tricked' by them, you might have been as well. But it usually only happens at a General Election - so we get the chance to vote a different way again pretty quickly. This was a more mammoth decision which will affect generations to come.

What I meant was that if we're to believe this particular piece of research (and a lot of other studies that have come out since the referendum) then many (though clearly not all) of the people who voted 'Leave' were on low incomes. They were clearly convinced, by the Leave campaign, that they had something to gain from voting this way. I think the Leave campaign lied. And I don't think those who ran the campaign had the interests of the less well off in society to the front of their minds at all. They simply wanted to win votes - and they employed (in my view) despicable means to do so. I don't think that makes people who were the victims of their tactics stupid. But it does make them victims. Because if the Leave campaigners had been telling the truth they'd have acknowledged that whatever the ultimate outcome of the UK leaving the EU (which doubtless we'll be able to judge in 30 years time or so) there will be a period of economic uncertainty and upheaval that accompanies this process. Even the current government has acknowledged that. And isn't it always the less well off who tend to suffer most when the economy gets rocky? They don't have savings and property to fall back on. I am very angry about this. I am not angry with people who don't have many resources and who voted Leave. I'm furious with those leading politicans who have lied to us all and threatened many people's livelihoods.

I'd be interested to know a bit more about why you see it that way robbin. Do expand.

I think we shouldn't lose sight of the central cruel irony of this situation. Apparently it's those who have least to spend on food who voted for Brexit. But they are the ones who will suffer most in the approaching 'difficult times' the government have warned about. As Andy Hamilton said: 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas....unless you tell them they're taking back control'.

Loz, my assumption was that malumbu was talking about the comment that had directly preceded his, not yours.

This smacks to me of the sort of idea that can occur shortly after the purchase of new corduroy trousers, or indeed the ordering of a Bronze Turkey.

According to an impressive Russia pundit interviewed on the World At One we are currently experiencing a 'Hot Peace', rather than a 'Cold War'.

Cork tiles (again heavily varnished) which my parents put down in their kitchen in the early 80s still going strong and looking good.

I agree with Jennys re the cork tiles. Warm, natural and inexpensive. Newly fashionable again I believe.

But that itself doesn't sound sane really, does it?

I agree with some of her domestic policy - ie a relaxation of this manic need to balance the books which has crippled public services and welfare provision. But what I can't get is her apparent massive blind-spot over the single market. It would seem fairly obvious that it's been crucial in ensuring our somewhat shaky economic recovery after the crash of 2008. Turning our backs on any element of access to it jeopardises that recovery and therefore our ability to fund public services. I think most Conservatives would agree that not prioritising that is diagnosably bonkers.