Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

DT was not quoted verbatim, the media couldn't wait to report part of his speech, but forgot to add ''until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on''
The media does it's self no favours in their quest for FoS when they seek to sensationalise, knowing (as in this case) it would result in public outcry.
2517

Dahir and two other gang members preyed on the “frailty, vulnerability and isolation” of victims in their eighties to defraud them out of £600,000. Yet Corbyn wrote a letter to the judge asking for Dahir to be granted bail so he could spend Christmas at home, insisting his constituent wouldn’t abscond:

“He understands the need to be here. He has been here on every occasion.”

The judge ignored Jezza’s bizarre plea and the pensioner scamming b*stard will be behind bars on Christmas Day…

Manuel.

You have put me off black pudding!

Hays,

Can we see a copy of the letter?

A bit more information.

The Old Bailey today

Jeremy Corbyn's extraordinary plea to judge: 'Let Muslim fraudster who fleeced pensioners out of £600,000 spend Christmas at home - not in prison'

Fraudster was part of gang of three who targeted the elderly for cash
They told victims they could lose their money if they didn't move it
One of the gang handed letter from Corbyn to the judge in the case
Judge turned down Labour leader's pleas for conman to be given bail

Dahir's barrister Patrick Harte presented Corbyn's letter to the Old Bailey and said: 'He (Dahir) understands the need to be here. He has been here on every occasion.'

Dahir had been on bail throughout the trial following an earlier successful application involving the letter from Mr Corbyn, who has been Islington North MP since 1983.

But, this time, Judge Anuja Dhir QC was unimpressed and remanded him in custody, ruling that Dahir might not turn up for sentence because of his conviction.

It is understood Mr Corbyn wrote the letter after Dahir was charged with the offence in May. While Dahir was granted bail during the trial following Mr Corbyn's intervention, two others tried alongside him remained in custody.

The Old Bailey had heard how Dahir, along with Yasser Abukar, 23, Sakaria Aden, 21, convinced victims as old as 96 to transfer money out of their accounts by telling them they were about to lose it.

The trial heard how the victims, aged in their 70s, 80s and 90s and from Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Bedfordshire, London and Kent, were phoned up by men posing as police officers investigating a fraud at their bank.

The victims were advised to transfer money or hand over cash for 'safekeeping', when in reality they were being ripped off.

One of the gang posing as a fake police officer might say they had someone in custody who was caught attempting to use a cloned card in a high street store such as Argos.

Mr Dent told the jury: 'Can you imagine your alarm on receiving a phone call like that from somebody purporting to be a police officer, saying there is fraud going on in your bank account?

'If you can imagine the alarm you might have, then think about the amount of alarm and distress to somebody considerably older than yourselves, perhaps less robust.'

Another member of the gang who received money through the scam, Mohammed Sharif Abokar, 28, blew thousands of pounds at the Hippodrome Casino in central London.

Abukar, Aden, and Dahir were found guilty of converting criminal property, while Abokar was convicted of money laundering.

One victim of the gang, William Gooding, who is in his 70s, was conned out of £9,000 after receiving a phone call from a 'PC Hopkins' based in Hammersmith, west London.

He was told his grandson was in custody and was told to transfer another £9,000 into a different account but staff at his local branch in Barnstaple, Devon, became suspicious.

Another victim, Michael Garrett, 70, from Weymouth, Dorset, was conned out of £113,000 by a fraudster posing as 'DC Adams' from Hammersmith Police Station.

He was told that his life savings were at risk from an 'inside job' at the bank and instructed to transfer them into 11 separate accounts operated by the gang.

Another 'clever, but simple' trick would be to suggest the victims dial 999 or phone their bank to confirm the fraudsters' story.

When the victims, in their 70s, 80s and 90s, hung up their phones and dialled the crooks would remain on the line.

Aden, of Stoke Newington; Dahir, of Finsbury Park, north London, Abukar of Holloway, north London, had denied conspiracy to commit fraud between 1 May 2012 and 7 May 2015. All three will be sentenced in the New Year.

Another ringleader, 23-year-old Makhzumi Abukar, has already admitted his part in the scam after being caught red-handed with cash taken from one of the victims.

Ibrahim Farah, 23, of north London, was cleared of conspiracy to defraud.

Hays,

Is Cameron going to be a ducker on Heathrow?

Seems he did well in Poland.


He had an escort to the airport.

Cameron is competing for the leadership into the Wilderness!

-=-=-==

Mind he may find Zac with a sack of donations for him.

Is Cameron corrupt, or just pragmatic.

Answers on the back of a "fag" packet.

We now know what Cameron is.

Appoints a Heathrow enquiry and then ignores it findings because the timing is an embarrassment to him.

Is a ducker?

He seems to ooze failure.

Is he a political and moral catastrophe?


What a government.

This Xmas the NHS is safe his hands, but don't turn up in casuality.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment
Most intelligent people realise that socialism could never work. Here is why, in the simplest fashion.


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.

Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense?

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, the free-market, Washington D.C. think tank. His articles are cross-posted on his blog, by agreement

Read more on: Daniel J. Mitchell, socialism, Obama, wealth distribution, wealth creation, economic inequality, economics, capitalism, competitiveness, incentive, and economic incentive

French socialism scares investors, impoverishes people
As a new survey shows that US investors' confidence in France has plummeted we are again reminded that socialism is sure to make you poorer


Not content with effectively exiling the country's rich and famous (Gerard Depardieu's move to Belgium was reported last week) due to preposterously high rates of taxation, France's socialist government can now take pride in having well and truly put the frighteners on foreign investors too.

A survey of French branches of American companies by the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris in conjunction with Bain and Company shows that the country's attractiveness as a place to do business has more than halved since the socialist government of Francois Hollande was elected in May.

The numbers are dramatic. In 2011, 56 percent of US investors regarded France as an attractive place to do business. As reported by France 24 on Saturday, the same survey now shows that that figure has plunged to just 22 percent.

Since the US investors' response to such absurdities as the 75 percent tax rate on income over one million euros is likely to be replicated among other foreign investors, we may be about to witness a collapse in foreign direct investment in the country.

That will cost jobs, reduce potential tax revenues and ultimately harm consumer and business confidence domestically. Great job Francois! Exactly what the doctor ordered at a time of recession and economic uncertainty.

The great tragedy is that when one wages class war, it is usually the poorest people in society that end up getting hurt the most. Rich individuals can move elsewhere. Foreign investors can shift their gaze to other countries.

But people who work in grocery stores tend to stay put. And when the government adopts policies that are bound to harm the wider economy it is they that take the hit.

France has yet again provided us with a stark reminder that socialism is always sure to make you poor.

HOMEABOUTNEWSCOMMENTTHE TEA ROOMPODCASTCONTACT

The Appropriation of Liberality by the Left
The mainstream media would do well to reflect more accurately the realities of contemporary British and European politics. A good start would be the dismantling of socialism’s bogus claim to liberality.


In their profiles, Facebook users were once given the option of declaring their political views. It was the same with other social media and I was always struck by the frequency amongst my own 20s age group of announcements by people that they were either ‘liberal’ or ‘very liberal’.

The chances are, too, that a broader sweep up and down Britain today would return a survey of much the same substance. Young people of voting age are, it seems, generally rather liberal.

And why not be? Liberalism is an admirable political meme both in practice and aspiration, especially if taken at its most essential as a commitment to openness in ideas, speech and action, and assuming at least the possibility and desirability, if not inevitability, of progress.

Yet reduction to these simpler dimensions begs the question of why political comment in the Western mainstream media is imbued with the acceptance that liberality is the preserve of the Left – in other words, granting the Left a claim to these young voters.

Moreover, question many of these people more carefully about their views on the issues of the day and we find that, as often as not, they turn out to be either socialists masquerading as liberals or liberals planning to vote for illiberal parties. Either way, there is evidently widespread confusion about the ideological coinage of political parties and their contemporary practice.

In the Telegraph recently, Graeme Archer pointed out what many of us have wryly noticed for some time: that the Liberal Democrat Party is neither especially liberal nor even democratic. It was a point well made, but was essentially a restatement of the philosopher and economist, Friedrich Hayek’s, critique of socialism’s appropriation of the name liberal.

Writing in 1973, Hayek argued that no European party describing itself as liberal then had continued to adhere to the associated principles of liberalism’s emergence as a distinct political approach in the nineteenth century. In fact, most had quite clearly moved to socialist platforms in their policy making, where they remain today.

The problem with socialists holding themselves out as liberals is that socialist parties are notoriously illiberal.

To take the British example, there was nothing particularly liberal and much that was distinctly authoritarian in the previous Labour government’s curtailment of freedom of speech, bonanza of legislation that practically rendered irrelevant the general understanding that what the law does not prohibit it permits, and mildly tyrannical approach to power and control – the latter recently lambasted by Nick Clegg in his ‘backroom boys’ critique of Labour’s leadership.

Europe wide, it is the imposition of a very definite value set – no matter how vegetarian in character – by an elite minority that jars with the idea of the Left as liberal.

The shrinkage in acceptable latitude of opinion has become so acute that we might soberly draw a parallel with Orwell’s world of newspeak – again, at its most basic, the parsing down of language into antonymous blocs of black and white to denote right and wrong; good and bad, with all shades and nuances in between gradually expunged.

The language of anti-discrimination is suffused with this dichotomising to the detriment of all rational debate. Yet still the socialists peddling it cling to the mantle of liberalism, ably abetted by the mainstream media whose job it is supposed to be to generate that debate.

And there is a reverse side to this irony, because it is, in fact, the old conservative parties of Europe that are best practicing and advancing liberalism’s tenets today. Free markets, free thinking and free speech are at the heart of modern conservatism - evolutionary reform with a Burkean belief in the worth of tradition.

The situation in the US, as Hayek noted, is slightly different, because the US constitution itself is an inherently liberal document, designed as it was against the constraints in European political life.

There is therefore less of a need to explain why Americans conservatively loyal to the constitution might plausibly hold themselves out as liberals. And it is in this way that libertarianism is able to parade as essentially a purer form of conservatism.

Of course, in some ways the Conservative Party in Britain has simply done what all wily political contenders do and move to snatch some of its opponent’s more winnable ground. Such was the key to New Labour’s middle class-focused success in 1997 and even the West’s victory over communism when most of its members adopted limited welfare apparatus early in the Cold War.

Over a longer period, the Conservative Party caught the zeitgeist of modernity and began to eulogise openness and progress.

Yet we must not ignore the very real practical reasons that the Liberal Democrats were able in May 2010 to go into coalition with the Conservatives but not Labour. Although it was anathema to many of the Liberal Democrat Party’s most ardent followers, and cannot be understood by them except in the basest terms of power lust, the simple truth is that there was more common ground between blue and yellow than red and yellow.

The mainstream media would do well to reflect more accurately the realities of contemporary British and European politics and discern more carefully those shades of detail that distinguish our political tradition and influence voters.

A good start would be the dismantling of socialism’s bogus claim to liberality.

Richard Cashman is an Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and barrister of the Middle Temple, London

Read more on: Richard Cashman, henry jackson society, socialism, liberalism, socialism's bogus claim to liberality, the new liberal establishment, hayek, Liberal Democrats, labour party, coalition government, and New Labour

Jeremy Corbyn vs George Osborne: Welcome to the 2020 UK general election

It couldn't have looked much worse for George Osborne in 2012 when, at the nadir of his chancellorship, he was booed by tens of thousands of people at the London Olympics. A double-dip recession. Biting austerity. Falling wages. Rising unemployment. His "omnishambles" budget. The unfortunate default facial expression: an aristocratic sneer. But just look at him now in 2015.

Employment is at a record high. Revised economic data shows the double-dip recession never actually happened. Britain's economy is the fastest growing in the Western world. Austerity continues but Osborne's tough programme was endorsed by an electorate that sent the Conservatives back into office with an unexpected majority.


The chancellor even looks more statesmanlike – he is trimmer, has neater hair, smiles more and has stopped wearing what looks like his dad's suit. He has emerged from the background, willingly, to present himself as the rightful heir to David Cameron's throne in Downing Street.

Osborne and the Conservatives won the debate on the economy and public finances in 2010. Rightly or wrongly, the public generally accepts austerity, that the previous Labour government spent and borrowed too much, and that closing the deficit – so reducing the public debt – is a matter of urgency. Now Osborne and Cameron have done a Blair – taken ownership of the political centre ground. And they've shifted it rightwards.

Nothing shows this better than the first post-election budget, in which Osborne – a one-time free market libertarian who advocated flat taxes – increased the minimum wage to appeal to working people on low-incomes. A massive statist intervention in wages, cheered on by the Conservative backbenches, that snatched the political ground from beneath Labour's feet.


It was a master stroke. It gave him the political space to do something not so centre ground: cut inheritance tax for the wealthy. Osborne knows that if the Conservatives want to hold on to power in 2020, they have to stay as close to the centre as possible, especially when the Labour party is running off to the left with the anticipated anointing of Jeremy Corbyn as leader on 12 September.

"My responsibility as a Conservative is to make sure our reaction to that is to stay where we are, occupying the centre-ground, looking forward, not back, and if they want to go back to the 1980s, let them," Osborne told the New Statesman. "The Conservative Party is not doing that. We're moving forward into the 2020s."


Cameron will not stay as leader of the Conservatives for a third term, ruling himself out of the 2020 general election. That means the battle has already begun to find his successor. His favoured candidate is said to be a close personal friend, someone he has worked closely with over the past decade: one George Osborne. And Osborne's revival from his near death experience in 2012 – there were calls for him to resign, so bad was the state of the economy thought to be –has seen him become favourite with the bookies to be the next Conservative leader.

Osborne's single-mindedness (see his clinging on to the chancellorship when others would have run screaming to the hills); his deadly strategic mind (just look at how he played Labour like a piano over the recent welfare vote); and his determination to occupy the centre-ground from which Westminster elections are won (he managed to get Tories to cheer his wage increase, so his chances of getting them to hold firm look good) mean Osborne is the man to beat in 2020, should he overcome the small hurdle of what will be a bitter leadership battle against the likes of Boris Johnson and Theresa May.

And, of course, he is relying on the ongoing health of the British economy in the face of numerous headwinds, as well as a referendum on the EU that threatens to tear his own party down the middle. One thing he probably doesn't have to worry about, however, is the Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn is storming ahead of his rivals in the race to become the next Labour leader. This is both remarkable and unsurprising. Corbyn says it as he sees it. He is a plain-speaking politician of conviction, a seeming antidote to the professionalisation of politics since 1997 and the managerial style of smoothly delivered soundbites and spin.

He is the antithesis of the Alastair Campbell school of politics. He is anti-austerity, anti-capitalist, anti-Nato, anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-whatever else happens to be faddish in far-left discourse. He is on the hard-left, the sort of gesture candidate who would ordinarily come last in such elections.

But these are not ordinary times. Corbyn's ascendancy is down to the same forces driving the likes of Ukip, Syriza, Front National, Bernie Sanders and the others like them. Anti-establishment, simple-answer, straight-talking politics born out of public frustration at the transactional, compromise, backroom deal making, complex democratic governments we have become accustomed to.

It's the sort of frustration – and some of it is simply ignorance – that leads people to ask simplistic rhetorical questions such as: if we can print money for bailing out the banks, why can't we just print money to spend on welfare? People don't want complexity, they want comfort. And those selling comfort are the simple answer politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage

But the trouble for Labour is that it's supposed to be a party of government, meaning it needs to win elections. To do that, Labour has to compromise with the electorate. It has to travel to them, not the other way around. Corbyn is not a man who could win a Westminster general election because he cannot damage the Tories and win back voters from them. He is simply too far to the left for Tory/Labour swing voters. So Corbynites pin their electoral hopes on a series of delusions about Corbyn's attractive powers to three camps: Labour loyalists, defectors and non-voters.

On the first, Corbyn probably can rely on support from party loyalists, mostly because they are what they are: loyal. But some may be tempted to jump ship because Corbyn's ideas are too radical for them, too far from the centre, that they can no longer justify continuing to vote for the party when it advocates the likes of leaving Nato, forcing the Bank of England to print money for public investment, and nationalising entire industries.

On the second, defectors have defected for different reasons. Many left to Ukip and the SNP, some to the Greens. The 'kippers care about immigration because they think there's too much of it, but Corbyn is staunchly pro-immigration. The SNP surge is motivated by nationalism and the desire for a party seen to stick up for Scotland, but Corbyn is anti-Scottish independence and to the left of the SNP, which advocates cutting corporation tax, for example.

And even if Labour had not been all but wiped out of Scotland, it still would not have won the general election. As for the Greens, Corbyn has spoken of reopening coal mines – so good luck winning them over. Besides, winning votes back from the Greens does little if nothing to hurt the Conservatives, which Labour must do for victory.

As a report by the Labour-aligned Fabian Society, The Mountain To Climb: Labour's 2020 Challenge, put it: "Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown)."

As for evidence of why they are wrong about non-voters, Corbynites need only to look at the unions – most of which, ironically, back their man. In the aftermath of the 2015 general election, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) polled non-voters on their attitudes. Other than "don't know" at 35%, the most popular reason for not voting Labour among non-voters was "they would spend too much and can't be trusted with the economy" at 30%.

Next was "they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits" at 23%. Then "they would raise taxes" at 22%. All of these clash with Corbyn's offering and fatally undermine his supporters' insistence that non-voters will smooth his path to Number 10.

Much of this has been evidenced in polling by Lord Ashcroft of past and present Labour voters, in particular loyalists and post-2010 defectors to other parties. Ukip switchers said Labour no longer stood up for the values it used to have, which will sound like music to a Corbyn supporter's ears –until you discover they all mention immigration as a top concern.

Defectors to the Conservatives said they were uninspired by Ed Miliband's leadership and they didn't think Labour would be competent with the economy. What's more, they thought the Conservative narrative and policy offering – making work pay, the Help to Buy scheme, and so on – was more aspirational and in tune with what they believe than Labour's.

And they are hawkish on welfare, with which Corbyn – who wants to expand the welfare state – is at odds. Corbyn also thinks most Labour voters have moved on from the Blair era and are in fact disgusted by it. But is this true? According to Ashcroft's analysis:

[Much] of the debate within Labour since the election has not been about the party's present or future but, implicitly, about its past. Many within the movement seem to regard the decade from 1997 – in electoral terms, the most successful time in the party's history – as a source of shame rather than pride. Here they are at odds not just with the voters who have since left, but with those that remain. Loyalists, as well as Defectors to other parties (especially the Conservatives) regard Tony Blair as the best Labour leader of the last thirty years. While Loyalists and Defectors overall said John Smith did a better job of standing up for Labour's values, they put Blair ahead on representing the whole country, appealing beyond traditional Labour voters and offering strong, competent leadership; switchers to the Tories gave him a clear lead in all categories. Under Blair, people in our groups recalled, Labour 'were pro-work, but they were fair'; they 'offered the best of public and private'. Moreover, Blair and the voters had a rapport: 'We got him, and he got us.' [...] The party must win over voters who have switched to the Conservatives, the group that differs most in outlook and attitude from those who currently work and vote for Labour. Doing so is not impossible: in my research, very few ruled out voting Labour again even at the next election (though most thought it very unlikely that they would be persuaded in time). But those who have moved away will not return by default.

In essence, there is not a homogenous left-wing block vote of low-to-middle income people on which Corbyn can rely to win a Westminster election. Different potential Labour voters have different priorities, and some of them simply cannot be reconciled. Add to that Corbyn's dubious past, which is currently being raked over, such as referring to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends". Having to bat away revelations and allegations all the time, many of which are perfectly justifiable, is not part of an inspiring alternative narrative.

Welcome to the 2020 general election: Osborne versus Corbyn. On the Conservative side, a man working hard to occupy as much of the centre-ground of British politics as is possible, moving it further right in the process and who has won, against the odds, a general election off the back of a strict austerity programme he has personally enforced.

On the other side, a man desperately trying to escape the centre-ground, alienating the important swing voters there to raise the consciousness of a mythical mass of far-left workers just waiting for their socialist saviour to lead them out of the struggle and towards revolution.

Corbynites must really like living under Conservative rule. Because they're about to select a Labour leader who'll ensure another five years of it after 2020 – and probably an even stronger Tory government.

Whatever you think of Tony Blair, the legacy of his leadership was 13 years of a Labour government which, by compromising with the electorate to secure power, achieved a long list of honourable and laudable things, such as the minimum wage. Corbyn's legacy list of achievements will be much shorter: another Conservative government. Not only a Conservative government, but one led by "Slasher Osborne" at that.

A leading Shadow Cabinet moderate has issued a "sack me if you dare" challenge to Jeremy Corbyn by attacking the Labour leader's support for Stop the War and demanding the sacking of Ken Livingstone as a defence policy adviser.

Amid talk of a “revenge reshuffle” after the Syria vote revolt, shadow culture secretary Michael Dugher lashed out at the left-wing Labour leader’s anti-war views and bitterly attacked Mr Corbyn’s long-time ally, the former London mayor.

In a highly provocative interview in which he pulled no punches in his attacks on Labour’s new leadership, Mr Dugher urged Mr Corbyn to confront the Stop the War leadership when he meets them at a fundraising dinner later this week.

"I think it might be quite useful if he went along to it because he can have a word with them as their former chairman and say to them ‘stop the intimidation, stop the abuse and stop the talk of deselections and going after Labour MPs who voted in a way they didn’t approve of’," he said.

Earlier this week, the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas announced she was quitting Stop the War because of her opposition to some of its recent statements, a move that has increased pressure on Mr Corbyn to disown the group and snub its dinner.

PHEW .

french national front
the results in the recent elections in france are not hugely surprising given how recent was the paris massacre

however, france has always had a strong undercurrent of racism, whether anti-semitic or anti-black ......
it is perhaps over the channel that should be causing more concern than the clown over the pond

What a total scumbag Corbyn is , to think he is actually leader of the opposition is very scary .

i am sure he is sincere in his beliefs

however, he does not seem to remotely grasp that views you can hold and even publicise as a backbencher may not be compatible with the high profile and public face of a (shadow) cabinet member, let alone leader of a serious political party

To which clown are you referring?

And the fact that he got voted in as leader in the first place is equally scary .

max - donald trump of course

v - it goes to show how much power the (militant) unions have over the labour party ...... for all that, there appear to be a lot of the younger generation with whom he resonates ...... though wisdom and common sense do not necessarily come with age, they frequently do as does the realisation of the necessity for pragmatism in the real world, and especially that of politics

OK, Trumpo.

Why do you think he is attracting so much support?