Jump to content
Jools

The Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, king canary said:

In 2010 the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote for less than 9% of the seats. A more proportional system would have meant maybe they wouldn't have needed to abandon so much of their manifesto to form that coalition.

Logical fallacy. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Instead of PR, a Republic would be better. Even then it can lead to the lowest polling candidate winning (ask Blondie Trump) but there has to be a way that this country can be governed properly and not on the whim of people who change their minds like the wind.

Another logical fallacy. There's no relationship between Proportional Representation and a Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system won't change until politicians are held to account more than every five years - or whatever the period between elections. The Lib_Con coalition demonstrates that coalitions of smaller parties are even worse democratically as the smaller parties have to give up so much - a la Clegg.

What is needed is more extensive recall, where a constituency can vote to recall their MP under a far wider range of situations than under the current system of recall. You have to make MPs more accountable to the electorate and less accountable to their party. Give more sovereign powers to the people.

Edited by Rock The Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

In 2010 the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote for less than 9% of the seats. A more proportional system would have meant maybe they wouldn't have needed to abandon so much of their manifesto to form that coalition.

18 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Logical fallacy. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Leaving aside that King said 'meant maybe' and that you don't seem to understand what a logical fallacy is - if the 2010 GE had been fought on PR then the Tories would have won approx 234 seats, Labour around 188 and the Lib Dems probably149.

Whilst nothing in life or politics is certain there are two very obvious conclusions one can infer from those figures. Firstly the Lib Dems could have chosen a coalition with either the Tories or Labour and in both cases the coalition would have had a good working majority whereas under FPTP the Labour option was rather thin number wise even though the two manifestos were far better aligned than the option Clegg actually choose - he might have made a different choice if the Labour option had offered a good majority.

Secondly, and more importantly, in either of those coalitions the Lib Dems, although still the smaller partner, would not have been the bit part player they accepted given the less than fifty seats that FPTP delivered. They would have carried significant weight in either coalition, held a significant number of cabinet posts and for sure had a veto over any policies which trashed their manifesto commitments.

Or to put it simply King Canary was right, and you've recorded yet another complete fail.

 

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The system won't change until politicians are held to account more than every five years - or whatever the period between elections. The Lib_Con coalition demonstrates that coalitions of smaller parties are even worse democratically as the smaller parties have to give up so much - a la Clegg.

What is needed is more extensive recall, where a constituency can vote to recall their MP under a far wider range of situations than under the current system of recall. You have to make MPs more accountable to the electorate and less accountable to their party. Give more sovereign powers to the people.

I think that is totally the wrong lesson to draw from the Lib/Con coalition - surely the real lesson is that you don't go into coalition with a party whose values and policies have very little in common with your own.

Had Clegg chosen to go with Labour, or force another election, then he would had to give up far less ,and the rest of us wouldn't have had to endure nine years of Tory degradation of our economy, our public services and our security.

 

Edited by Creative Midfielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile: Johnson confirms he is rejecting Neil interview Senior Con source: “The public are fed up with interviews that are all about the interviewer and endless interruptions. The format is tired and broken and needs to change if it is to start engaging and informing the public again.”

 

BTW as this is the Brexit Party thread, how did Nigel's interview with Neil go? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

I don't think that that is true Ricardo. The Conservative Party has always seen power as its raison d'etre but the Liberals/ Social Democrats and the Labour Party have always had an ideology which, at times has hampered them electorally. 

Politicians have always been economical with the truth, but I can never recall an election with quite such obvious lies. Only the Greens seem to act with any principle at the moment.

You've forgotten about Blairs dogey WMD dosier already😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Instead of PR, a Republic would be better. Even then it can lead to the lowest polling candidate winning (ask Blondie Trump) but there has to be a way that this country can be governed properly and not on the whim of people who change their minds like the wind.

No, as I'm living in such a system I can't recommend that. We also have FPTP and an assumption the President is co-equal to Congress and the Judiciary. And you can all see how well (sic) that is working out. Under the UK system the PM is constrained by votes in Parliament, under the US system it's becoming apparent that he may not be constrained at all - partly because Presidents can appoint Supreme Court Judges... unless you are a Democrat President that is, as this right is reserved for Republicans 🙂

Some form of electoral reform may be necessary in the UK, but the underlying principle of Parliament is Sovereign seems to be the right model to retain. Modernising the media ownership, broadcast license and social media laws may be a more fruitful avenue for more representative outcomes in the future. 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Well yes it would do if your original statement had been at all accurate................

Is momentum not the driving force behind Labour or are you trying to create a smokescreen, again 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Is momentum not the driving force behind Labour or are you trying to create a smokescreen, again 😉

I think the answer is probably neither - although Momentum is often billed as a huge, highly motivated and well disciplined campaigning organisation that was going to play a significant role in getting Labour elected but other than the huge bit, that appears to be  an urban myth. I've certainly seen nothing of them in this election which is pretty surprising given that I live in a constituency which is currently a Labour marginal under significant threat from the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems have been very actively campaigning since a couple of days after the election was announced and I expected to also be swamped with Momentum campaigners but have seen next to nothing from Labour and nothing whatsoever from Momentum.

Actually the whole concept of Labour having a 'driving force' of any sort seems a tad strange as they appear to have negligible drive or leadership. They have been the most compliant opposition imaginable, failing to make a dint on some of the most inept and incompetent governance this country has ever seen, and their election campaign seems equally lifeless.

As for the smokescreen bit I think you are confusing me with your own intentions. I've already made it perfectly clear I have no interest in defending Labour or voting for them, I just find your continual, over the top and unsubstantiated demonising of them quite perverse and hypocritical, when you can't find any outrage or even acknowledgement over the many despicable actions of your own party.

Edited by Creative Midfielder
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I think the answer is probably neither - although Momentum is often billed as a huge, highly motivated and well disciplined campaigning organisation that was going to play a significant role in getting Labour elected but other than the huge bit, that appears to be  an urban myth. I've certainly seen nothing of them in this election which is pretty surprising given that I live in a constituency which is currently a Labour marginal under significant threat from the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems have been very actively campaigning since a couple of days after the election was announced and I expected to also be swamped with Momentum campaigners but have seen next to nothing from Labour and nothing whatsoever from Momentum.

Actually the whole concept of Labour having a 'driving force' of any sort seems a tad strange as they appear to have negligible drive or leadership. They have been the most compliant opposition imaginable, failing to make a dint on some of the most inept and incompetent governance this country has ever seen, and their election campaign seems equally lifeless.

As for the smokescreen bit I think you are confusing me with your own intentions. I've already made it perfectly clear I have no interest in defending Labour or voting for them, I just find your continual, over the top and unsubstantiated demonising of them quite perverse and hypocritical, when you can't find any outrage or even acknowledgement over the many despicable actions of your own party.

My own party ....... I think not! 
The reality is I recon the current Labour Party will destroy this country if in government, you are happy to defend them, I’m not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Van wink said:

My own party ....... I think not! 
The reality is I recon the current Labour Party will destroy this country if in government, you are happy to defend them, I’m not!

Well who you vote for is your own business but you are quite clearly an advocate for them, so it seems reasonable to assume you will also vote for them.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not defending the Labour party (or happy either for that matter!), I just dislike your hypocrisy and double standards - is that clear enough for you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Well who you vote for is your own business but you are quite clearly an advocate for them, so it seems reasonable to assume you will also vote for them.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not defending the Labour party (or happy either for that matter!), I just dislike your hypocrisy and double standards - is that clear enough for you?

No double standards CM, I suspect you are very much aware of the dangers posed by Labour, if you are not you should be! Your reluctance to call it out is where the true hypocrisy is seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

 

I'm equally fed up with this witch hunt. The far left and far right are two sides of the same coin - simple moronic solutions without the capacity to see beyond their 'faith'. The same person that becomes a far left intolerant lefty in another family grows up to be a far right intolerant righty. Probably due to too much inbreeding and not enough new (immigrant) genes.

 

 

Just look at the likes of Horst Mahler, founding member of the Red Army Faction, now a neo-Názi

 

Edited by How I Wrote Elastic Man
the word "Názi" on the naughty list, apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Leaving aside that King said 'meant maybe' and that you don't seem to understand what a logical fallacy is - if the 2010 GE had been fought on PR then the Tories would have won approx 234 seats, Labour around 188 and the Lib Dems probably149.

Whilst nothing in life or politics is certain there are two very obvious conclusions one can infer from those figures. Firstly the Lib Dems could have chosen a coalition with either the Tories or Labour and in both cases the coalition would have had a good working majority whereas under FPTP the Labour option was rather thin number wise even though the two manifestos were far better aligned than the option Clegg actually choose - he might have made a different choice if the Labour option had offered a good majority.

Secondly, and more importantly, in either of those coalitions the Lib Dems, although still the smaller partner, would not have been the bit part player they accepted given the less than fifty seats that FPTP delivered. They would have carried significant weight in either coalition, held a significant number of cabinet posts and for sure had a veto over any policies which trashed their manifesto commitments.

Or to put it simply King Canary was right, and you've recorded yet another complete fail.

 

 

image.png

You simply have no idea how a coalition might have been negotiated, who would have been part of it or what the eventual balance of seats each member of the coalition might have. You are unable to predict what factors might have to be taken into account when putting together a coalition. As an example, who would have predicted that Clegg would give up one of his major manifesto policies, namely tuition fees. Canary King's understanding of politics - and yours - is about fifth-form comprehensive level. And that's being kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I think that is totally the wrong lesson to draw from the Lib/Con coalition - surely the real lesson is that you don't go into coalition with a party whose values and policies have very little in common with your own.

Had Clegg chosen to go with Labour, or force another election, then he would had to give up far less ,and the rest of us wouldn't have had to endure nine years of Tory degradation of our economy, our public services and our security.

 

This is la-la land thinking. By going into a coalition it means you have to give up policies, and take up policies with which you do not agree and did not campaign for. Period. That means compromising your beliefs. In other words, coalitions are all about moral compromises and delivering something that your supporters did not vote for. That is a morally corrupt form of government and it is no surprise that so many European countries are ok with the morally corrupt EU because they, too are morally corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You simply have no idea how a coalition might have been negotiated, who would have been part of it or what the eventual balance of seats each member of the coalition might have. You are unable to predict what factors might have to be taken into account when putting together a coalition. As an example, who would have predicted that Clegg would give up one of his major manifesto policies, namely tuition fees. Canary King's understanding of politics - and yours - is about fifth-form comprehensive level. And that's being kind.

😀👍🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

 

I'm equally fed up with this witch hunt. The far left and far right are two sides of the same coin - simple moronic solutions without the capacity to see beyond their 'faith'. The same person that becomes a far left intolerant lefty in another family grows up to be a far right intolerant righty. Probably due to too much inbreeding and not enough new (immigrant) genes.

I note there are no comments on here from anybody who is actually Jewish - just point scoring 'in their name' or flippant quips.

However let me give you a little insight from my family on Brexit. The 'older' generation' than me (and well educated retired first generation professionals well into their dotage ) generally voted Brexit - the 80M 'Turks' actually was quoted to me - it frightened them as was intended - but where then harangued by their children (all now in their late 50s - yes and fully Jewish) in dismay pointing out that they themselves had been 'welcomed' into this country as immigrants - growing up in the in the East End.     

The argument here is to get some balance.

Yes I'm sure a lot of Jews consider leaving - I consider many things most of which I quickly reject as absurd. However I don't play political games with it. A plague on all the racists and anti-semites in all the political parties. Fully examine THEM ALL.

 

Except that the racism and anti-semitism is not equally distributed between the main parties. The Conservatives undoubtably have some racists. To the extent that any anti-Muslim prejudice has been found in the Conservative Party it is limited to a handful of councillors sharing posts on social media which are to some degree or other deemed to be “Islamophobic”. Is this equivalent to what Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have done to the Labour Party in recent years? Is there an equitable amount of whatabouttery between Labour and the Conservatives. The evidence suggests not. 

Boris Johnson would have had to have laid flowers at the grave of Baruch Goldstein (who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslims in 1994), plausibly the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn laying a wreath at the grave of the Munich Olympics murderers. This hasn't happened.

In 2017, Darren Osborne drove a truck into a crowd of worshippers leaving prayers at a mosque in Finsbury Park. And yet, to date, Boris Johnson has not campaigned that Osborne should not have been charged, found guilty or sentenced for this appalling crime.  Unlike Corbyn, who has campaign for the release of convicted terrorists, including those who planted the Brighton bomb.

While the John Mcdonall has spent years defending the “bravery” of the IRA when they tortured and murdered hundreds of innocent people, there is no evidence that the present, Sajid Javid ever praised or gave supportive speeches for the Red Hand Defenders or Ulster Volunteer Force.

There is only one political party currently under investigation bt the UK Human Rights Commission. 

So while the far left and the far right are both fascist in nature and loathsome in character, of the two main parties, it is only the Labour party that has well-and-truly become infected with a virulent and toxic form of racism. Anybody who thinks they can hold their nose and vote for Labour are doing exactly what the voters in 1930s Germany did; and we know how that turned out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Van wink said:

No double standards CM, I suspect you are very much aware of the dangers posed by Labour, if you are not you should be! Your reluctance to call it out is where the true hypocrisy is seen.

I am well aware of the Labour's failings which is why I criticised them and made it clear I would not support them, despite you continually trying to rewrite my posts to suggest otherwise.

True hypocrisy is continually expressing hyperbolic outrage about reprehensible behaviour in a political party which you dislike whilst remaining totally silent over even worse behaviour in a political party which you support and which also happens to be runnning the country and therefore has caused far more damage with their despicable behaviour than the people you are so outraged about.

You are a hypocrite and you have clearly demonstrated your double standards, and frankly I've really nothing more to say on what it is clearly entirely pointless conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I am well aware of the Labour's failings which is why I criticised them and made it clear I would not support them, despite you continually trying to rewrite my posts to suggest otherwise.

True hypocrisy is continually expressing hyperbolic outrage about reprehensible behaviour in a political party which you dislike whilst remaining totally silent over even worse behaviour in a political party which you support and which also happens to be runnning the country and therefore has caused far more damage with their despicable behaviour than the people you are so outraged about.

You are a hypocrite and you have clearly demonstrated your double standards, and frankly I've really nothing more to say on what it is clearly entirely pointless conversation.

“continually expressing hyperbolic outrage about reprehensible behaviour in a political party which you dislike whilst remaining totally silent over even worse behaviour in a political party which you support”

 

So many things wrong in there CM.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

This is la-la land thinking. By going into a coalition it means you have to give up policies, and take up policies with which you do not agree and did not campaign for. Period. That means compromising your beliefs. In other words, coalitions are all about moral compromises and delivering something that your supporters did not vote for. That is a morally corrupt form of government and it is no surprise that so many European countries are ok with the morally corrupt EU because they, too are morally corrupt.

Wrong in every respect and further proof that logic is not your strong suit or indeed any suit at all.

I thought I remembered you saying that you studied Philosophy but either I imagined that or you skipped an awful lot of lectures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ricardo said:

We will be talking about the next Labour leader contest in a weeks time😉

Sticking with him has gifted the election to BJ.

This was a huge opportunity for a decent opposition to sweep into Downing St, Corbyn is a millstone.I know many Labour voters who will just not vote Labour because of Corbyn and the power now held by Momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr Apples said:

I wonder if RTB had to Google the fact that 47% is almost half? 🤔🤣

Apples

According to Swindo, 47% is over half - he then doubled down on that statement.

Last I heard, he had bought himself a calculator... but only so he could saw it in half to see where the numbers live...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Except that the racism and anti-semitism is not equally distributed between the main parties. The Conservatives undoubtably have some racists. To the extent that any anti-Muslim prejudice has been found in the Conservative Party it is limited to a handful of councillors sharing posts on social media which are to some degree or other deemed to be “Islamophobic”. Is this equivalent to what Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have done to the Labour Party in recent years? Is there an equitable amount of whatabouttery between Labour and the Conservatives. The evidence suggests not. 

Boris Johnson would have had to have laid flowers at the grave of Baruch Goldstein (who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslims in 1994), plausibly the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn laying a wreath at the grave of the Munich Olympics murderers. This hasn't happened.

In 2017, Darren Osborne drove a truck into a crowd of worshippers leaving prayers at a mosque in Finsbury Park. And yet, to date, Boris Johnson has not campaigned that Osborne should not have been charged, found guilty or sentenced for this appalling crime.  Unlike Corbyn, who has campaign for the release of convicted terrorists, including those who planted the Brighton bomb.

While the John Mcdonall has spent years defending the “bravery” of the IRA when they tortured and murdered hundreds of innocent people, there is no evidence that the present, Sajid Javid ever praised or gave supportive speeches for the Red Hand Defenders or Ulster Volunteer Force.

There is only one political party currently under investigation bt the UK Human Rights Commission. 

So while the far left and the far right are both fascist in nature and loathsome in character, of the two main parties, it is only the Labour party that has well-and-truly become infected with a virulent and toxic form of racism. Anybody who thinks they can hold their nose and vote for Labour are doing exactly what the voters in 1930s Germany did; and we know how that turned out.

 

Actually I have to hold my nose and suspend rational argument discussing anything with you as any nuances of opinion are well beyond your understanding.

It is very obvious where you are coming from and your political spin and untruths on well established facts. The Corbyn wreath laying event was investigated  in 2018 and debunked. Its why it doesn't come up now.

The choice before us next week is between somebody who has a very loose association with the truth (sacked twice already for lying) , indeed doesn't know what it is, lies to the Queen and everybody else it seems, has managed to push back several inquiries into his and his parties actions until after the election and somebody who may be inept, hamfisted and naive but who at least has good intentions. 

I dont want either to be in an unfettered majority... oddly enough I'd have to hold my nose and vote for somebody else if I thought Corbyn would form a majority.

What I will always argue for is the truth and honesty. Facts not smears or downright lies. So that counts you out.

Edited by Yellow Fever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...