Jump to content

horsefly

Members
  • Content Count

    10,520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by horsefly


  1. 1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

    It was over 48 hours since there was a post in this thread, so it had been bumped well down the homepage. There had been several positive comments in the Euros thread and the match thread about Gunn's performance against Hungary, so criticising those fickle fans who 'piled in' on Gunn after the Germany game isn't really fair.

    Can't they handle a little bit of criticism?¬†ūüėŹ


  2. I see all those happy to join in the pile on regarding Gunn's putative "errors" against Germany seem somewhat reticent to post on this thread about his exceptional game saving performance against the Swiss. Isn't this the sort of thing Idah was on about?

    • Like 3

  3. The latest YouGov poll in Gt Yarmouth puts the figures at:

    Reform UK: 36%

    Labour: 31%

    Conservatives: 24%

    This raises a very interesting question that I have yet to see discussed in the MSM (or elsewhere) regarding tactical voting. So far the only discussion about tactical voting has been about how to ensure a Tory candidate is defeated. However, Reform's "successful" campaign suggests we now need to include a new dimension to the tactical voting issue; that Tory voters might need to switch their vote to keep out a Reform candidate.

    If you are a traditional "one-nation" Tory voter then the last thing you would want is for Reform UK Ltd to be successful in this election. Each Reform candidate elected as an MP further empowers those who want the (post election) Tory party to lurch to the far-right and assume the clothing of Farage's party. So doesn't that suggest traditional one-nation Tory voters should tactically switch their vote to Labour in seats like Gt Yarmouth in order to lessen the chances of a post election Tory Party becoming a far-right organisation? 

     

    • Like 5

  4. 1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Only in 2019, after having refused to in 2017 after much pressure and having sat on its hands abstaining on most major votes along the way. Nobody trusted the Labour position either way by that stage, especially as Labour supporters were hitting social media discussions for both sides of the debate giving a nod and a wink that Labour would finish up landing on their side. Probably something to do with the party's long history of lying on things such as tuition fees and electoral reform. Nobody trusted the terrorist-loving antisemite the party had decided to make leader of the opposition at such a critical time either. Utterly irresponsible behaviour for a main party.

    In other news, inflation figures just released look very good, a Labour candidate has just been suspended for pro-Russian posts and downplaying antisemitism, and Reform have said it's okay for one of its candidates to suggest that Rishi Sunak's head should be displayed on a spike. Might possibly liven the election up a bit; God knows it needs it.

    Overall, it'll probably be good news for the Labour party if their majority isn't as big as 426. Given how easily the party can descend into infighting, the last thing they need is MPs fighting for a limited number of seats on benches on the government side of the house. ūüėČ

    So you admit you were talking tripe. Well done!


  5. 7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    And one other thing: The Lib Dems were the only ones willing to stand up and really argue the case for revisiting the question of of leaving the EU while your spineless, Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party sat on its hands and abstained for just about every major vote on the subject. For such pro EU blowhards as you and Herman, the mind boggles how you find that more forgivable and more defensible than the Lib Dems tuition fees backtrack in 2010.

    Utter tripe. It was EXPLICITLY a Labour Party manifesto pledge to give the population a chance to vote in a second referendum on the Brexit deal once the terms had been agreed. How in God's name can you describe that as a refusal to "revisit the question of leaving the EU" when it would have given the country an opportunity to overturn the decision?


  6. 23 minutes ago, sonyc said:

    I suppose you just need to know a poster, how he or she sees the world. Like your own approach...I can often sense how you might reply to certain issues. I don't see an irrefutable fact being intimated but a viewpoint and a rationale. Who are any of us to know absolutely on anything. That's what I've posted about so many times (to try and hold at least a 1% uncertainty in one's own position).

    It's about a respect for other posters' view of the world, whether you agree or not.

    You've just posted yourself about the excellent Campbell and Stewart podcast and acceptance or tolerance of another's viewpoint. 

    If we don't like another's angle then I reckon it's best just to not respond (which is a conscious choice and I guess, a political decision). 

    On that theme I can highly recommend Rory Stewart's excellent book " Politics on the Edge". I remember when Stewart was made prisons minister, and in his first interview said he would resign if he didn't meet the targets he explicitly specified for prison service improvements. I thought then that he was one of a very few Tories that I could actually trust and admire, and everything he has done since confirms that view. That the Tories chose the corrupt charlatan Johnson over him to be their leader is very much a reason why the Conservatives are facing virtual extinction on July 4th.

    • Like 2

  7. 15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    What they need to do is use the majority to enact the changes and REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SO THAT CHANGES CAN'T BE SO READILY REVERSED BY PUTTING AN END TO MAJORITY GOVERNMENTS*.

    *Subject to a party not actually getting over 50% of the vote of course, which doesn't happen very often.

    I guess you haven't followed European politics since WWII.  PR has NOT prevented systemic corruption (often much worse than we've seen in the UK). PR has led to extremist parties having influence way beyond what their electoral vote justifies. PR has often led to sclerotic inaction (The Belgians were without a government for over a year as the various parties exploited PR to trade for the best self-interested deal). 

    In principle I'm actually in favour of PR. In practice I see no evidence that there has been a system implemented in Europe that is an improvement on what we have. I'd rather see PR introduced for a new democratically elected second chamber to replace the Lords. 

    • Thanks 1

  8. 31 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    The only mugs are those who believe getting rid of honours will make everyone equal

    Not one person has said that, and I guarantee that no one on here would be stupid enough to think that. Your typical tactic of lying about what others have said or think so you can spew out more of your tripe.

    • Like 1

  9. 59 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

    Absolutely, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Alan Bates richly deserves this honour, and of course he isn't the only one, but as you say he is very much the exception rather than the rule.

    It is a truly rotten system which needs to be either scrapped completely or so drastically overhauled that only exceptional and genuinely deserving people, such as Alan Bates, receive honours.

     

    Get rid of the Royal honours list completely (An absurdity in a democracy), and replace the other honours lists with the award of 10 "medal(s) of national honour" in an annual ceremony, where the achievements of those 10 individuals can be properly identified and celebrated. No anachronistic titles, no ennobling lackies and grifters into an unelected second chamber, no awards for celebrities (sporting, acting, or otherwise) who are already recognised in a plethora of industry awards. Just 10 people a year recognised for the outstanding contribution they have made to society.


  10. 37 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

    I agree somewhat that traditional nationalisation maybe problematic, but water privatisation has failed the ordinary people and benefitted the rich, whether they be individuals or organisations, coupled with that, the executive pay has been grotesque. 

    Maybe there is a third way, it should be explored.

    I've long thought there ought to be a category of businesses that should be identified as having something like a "significant public and cultural impact status" that imposes legally binding restrictions and duties. Football clubs would be a very good example. Football clubs clearly have a massive cultural significance for their local area, that ought to invoke restrictions on owners and their  behaviour. How many times have we seen clubs exploited by an owner with no connection to the area, with no interest in the club's fortunes other than to strip of it assets, bankrupt it, and leave the local community devastated. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  11. If there is to be an honours system then Alan bates is absolutely the right person to be awarded a knighthood. Without his astonishing resilience and perseverance one of the greatest miscarriages of justice and systematic corporate fraud would have remained covered up forever by powerful establishment figures. He is one of a very few knighted individuals I would certainly refer to as "Sir" (compare Rees-Bogg). I hope he has a wonderful day receiving his honour, and uses it to pursue justice for every single one of the postmasters so horribly wronged. 

    It's just a shame that these lists of honours are now transparently an exercise in deception in order to keep a corrupt honours system going. They always manage to find at least one very deserving person to dominate all the headlines in order to smuggle through a host of undeserving political party donors, hacks, establishment cronies, and others who have clearly "paid" for their award. Time to scrap the honours system as we know it. As the saying goes, virtue is its own reward.

    • Like 2

  12. One of the things about a general election campaign is the opportunity it affords to point out irony and hypocrisy. I take it as uncontroversial to suggest that current Reform UK Ltd supporters would have been at the forefront of those who would have ridiculed the 2019 Labour manifesto as unaffordable. Thus I invite any Reform UK Ltd supporter on this site to defend the fantasy list of pledges that way exceeds the costs of anything Corbyn promised.  Image

    • Like 2

  13. 17 minutes ago, Herman said:

    Yes, it's interesting on twitter at the moment. Hundreds, if not thousands of pro-Reform accounts are swarming over any posts critical of Fartage and Reform. A lot with paid for blue tick accounts, quite a few pro-Russia sentiments. Their campaign is costing someone a lot of money. Are the tories about to be eaten by their own tactics?

    Indeed! Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum in favour of Farage, and are doing so yet again. Farage is a major Russian conduit for disrupting UK politics, and it is no surprise at all that Farage described Putin as the world leader he "most admired" above all others (something he said AFTER Russia had invaded the sovereign territory of Ukraine, Crimea). Your suspicion about the "blue tick" accounts on twitter are well founded. I have posted about that issue on twitter myself. Blue tick accounts were virtually the exclusive reserve of celebrities with 100,000+ followers. Now there seem to be tens of thousands of blue tick accounts with followers counted in their tens, and all of whom are supportive of far right (typically Reform UK Ltd) policies. Coincidence? Not remotely.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...