You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Great Reset
August 18 2022 9.26am

The Great Reset

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 9 of 28 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

 

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 22 9.26pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

So brexit mps who believe it is in the ukís best interest are all wrong.
Is that what you are saying ?

They are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. It seems an established fact that in 2016 a majority of MPs favoured us remaining in the EU whilst, after a "campaign" on the issue, the electorate voted to leave by a narrow margin. As others have pointed out, the reasons why they did so often had little to do with whether our membership was wise, or not.

For me this has always raised the question on why we held a referendum on such a specialised matter when we pay our representatives to study, debate and consult, so they can take an informed decision on our behalf.

Who do we trust? Our MPs, or the people after they have been exposed to vested interests, the Daily Mail and Russian troll farms?

Neither are perfect, but on balance I trust our MPs much more than the Daily Mail or the Russians.

Our own security forces were telling the government the result was compromised, but they feared political annihilation by Farage so decided not to act. So we left the EU not because our MPs thought it was in our best interests to do so, but to save the Tory Party.

Cameron, and to a lesser extent May, will go down in history as the PMs who set the UK back for decades. That their successor is a self-serving opportunist just makes things worse.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 22 9.38pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by W12

So we are a constitutional monarchy that doesnít have a constitution?

Correct.

We don't have a written constitution, but we do have Acts of Parliament (and common laws) which are vested in an elected Parliament. The Monarch signs them into law, but has no influence over them. The Monarch reigns, but does not rule.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 9.42pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'd say there is a lot of common sense in your commentary.

It's certainly wrong to 'blame' or abuse people for their genetics. However, the neo liberal state is fully committed to the world village. Any objection to that future is regarded as 'hate' or 'abuse'.

For an example, look at what happened to those cricketers in Yorkshire. Does anyone serious outside of the usual suspects really believe that Asians were subjected to 'hate' or 'abuse'? Yet look at what the state and the institutions made happen.....they didn't even really care about the truth, the accusations were all they needed.

The same tactics are used if you point out things you might not agree with over the Israeli state these last seventy years (not that these are arguments I tend to make). The system is set up in such a way that those criticisms will see you branded an 'antisemite'. You will suddenly see people who disagree using words like 'hate' and 'abuse'. You will be subjected to the Maoist practice of being told what you really think instead of your actual words speaking for themselves....instead they will 'interpret' those words for you.

Whether it's a debate on race or gender or anything else the current power structure wants, it's a tactic used to head off actual debate or justify whatever the system wants to punish you with for ideas it fears.

I think it's a valid question to ask how we got here.....why we got here....and where are we going....and is any of that an improvement and if so....for whom.

Because Nicholas it has to be stated, the system that raised me was fully committed to exactly the beliefs as you stated them....I'd describe them as the Martin Luther King Jr mindset....or what it's called in my circles, 'boomer truth'.

It's is that exact same system that led us to exactly this place now.

Personally I think we are living in an age where there is a disconnect between what people like me were brought up to believe in....that kind of Martin Luther King Jr, 'I have a dream' speech and what actually occurred once all the boomer egalitarians enacted their ideas.

As I say I was raised on those same 'boomer truths' and ideals. I advocated for them for most of my adult life. Things changed in my approach only when I actually paid attention to what was actually happening. What the actual laws and i1nstitutions started to resemble.

I think that point is very important...actually connecting the rhetoric to what the consequences to them were are on the ground once it was implemented. I don't see that as an accident or incidental at all. It was always what was going to happen.

We both lived in Lewisham and its surrounding areas. So we both know what the holistic realities are once the demographics were made to change....the crime rate, the actual real group loyalties and allegiances.

You only have to look at the areas on a before and after basis. Look at Detroit in the 1950s and now, or Luton or Brixton then and now. Look at how things are run, from the rubbish on the streets to the actual lack of diversity on them....because the boxer Ali was definitely right about actual group living dynamics.

To me, you have to either be on the far left and anti white or a complete and utter utopian to see think the harmonious global village is going to work...they can't point to any location on earth where it does and few of them will live in those locations. Yet they will still point to their 'I have a dream' ideas like a Disney fan holds onto a world of Princesses and ivory towers.

They know what they want the world to be like and so they will keep saying what they believe regardless of what the reality is.....like the rich gated communities in LA, who keep voting Democrat just as long as their secured patch is kept safe from the consequences of those votes outside the gates.

I regard it as the difference between a utopian and a utilitarian.

They don't care about the holistic reality, only their reality and the conceit of virtue signalling to fit in with their political peers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 8.11pm)

Ha, thanks for getting back to me. Yep I agree with a lot of that.

I think for myself, the overriding thought of recent times has been that what has been raised or idealised by the 'hoi polloi', you know, 'let's try and be nice to one-another' etc has indeed by weaponised and scaled by malevolent entities. Therefore whilst basic tenets should not be lost neither should they be surrendered to malignant forces, which I am inclined to believe there is ample evidence to prove has occurred in many corners. The highlighted is very much an example of this, you know, 'we are proposing x which we will proclaim as virtue however impose it to a degree that of course benefits us and includes the demonisation of those who in anyway don't toe the line, which you know, may disrupt that which we seek to profit from'. I have long stated that what we are seeing prevalent in society these days is not a result of egalitarianism at all, it's for profit.

I desperately want to believe in the good and intelligence of people however I am constantly staggered, bemused, left disillusioned and so on by many others. You only have to take to the likes of Twitter to start questioning whether or not you are in some sort of matrix, where other people are computer generated as you cannot fathom what runs through their minds... if anything... or more precisely anything of their own creation. I think many actually are on Twitter if you believe Elon! I'm not saying that all people do not have different perspectives, experiences, make mistakes, articulate themselves poorly or even change from time to time but the complete submission to what is more and more becoming somewhat an Orwellian nightmare however is unnerving at the very, very least.

As previously mentioned, for me there is a huge and very obvious chasm between 'don't be racist' and 'lets encourage and facilitate for the entire world to come to England, or more notably London'. That's two different notions/things entirely. I will forever fight for what I believe to be 'common sense' and just as previously mentioned, no I don't believe you can abuse anyone for things that are not relevant to your experience, but neither should you submit to anything other than 'what makes sense' for yet more lack of articulation. 'Be nice to people' - yes. 'The unregulated acceptance of the rest of the world and it's social/moral/religious etc. systems into your society without any questioning' - no.


 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 08 Jun 22 9.55pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by W12

But the fact that itís not ďcodifiedĒ (not sure where that world came from but sounds suspiciously post modern) doesnít mean itís not law and itís not written down.

We do 100% have a constitution.

Only if post-modernism includes the past 200 years.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 10.05pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Correct.

We don't have a written constitution, but we do have Acts of Parliament (and common laws) which are vested in an elected Parliament. The Monarch signs them into law, but has no influence over them. The Monarch reigns, but does not rule.

Not quite.

Technically, we have an 'uncodified constitution', meaning essentially it's not 'written down', as opposed to the USA's 'codified' constitution.

That's how it was when I studied such things, which was a long time ago and therefore may be incorrect, in which case my 'not quite' will make me look stupid on here... moreso.

Happy to be corrected

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 08 Jun 22 10.44pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Not quite.

Technically, we have an 'uncodified constitution', meaning essentially it's not 'written down', as opposed to the USA's 'codified' constitution.

That's how it was when I studied such things, which was a long time ago and therefore may be incorrect, in which case my 'not quite' will make me look stupid on here... moreso.

Happy to be corrected

When people say the UK doesn't have a written constitution I think that some people get the impression that it means no one is guided by laws and rules and just go on practice.

I think there are obviously written down laws and codes for the individual parts of the system. It's just not all put together within a single document called a constitution.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 10.45pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 11.13pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

When people say the UK doesn't have a written constitution I think that some people get the impression that it means no one is guided by laws and rules and just go on practice.

I think there are obviously written down laws and codes for the individual parts of the system. It's just not all put together within a single document called a constitution.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 10.45pm)

Yes, just not quite so dramatised as the American version.

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 08 Jun 22 11.23pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Yes, just not quite so dramatised as the American version.

Indeedy.

I wonder how many amendments it has because mainly you only really hear about the first two.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 08 Jun 22 11.44pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Bradford......crowned UK City of Culture.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 09 Jun 22 7.01am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

When people say the UK doesn't have a written constitution I think that some people get the impression that it means no one is guided by laws and rules and just go on practice.

I think there are obviously written down laws and codes for the individual parts of the system. It's just not all put together within a single document called a constitution.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 10.45pm)

Correct.

However far too much of our constitution is left for interpretation by the courts or historical precedent (Just because we did something in the past e.g. witches were drowned...).

I for one would like to see a bill detailing responsibilities and duties for the PM, ministers and back bench MPs. Most people have a work contract that details this and the consequences of breaking it e.g. if you steal we will sack you.

It is ridiculous in this day and age that MPs can pretty much do what they like and only the extreme examples are punished.

- They don't have minimum working hours for the HOC or their constituency offices.
- There are no performance related metrics e.g. just because you turn up doesn't mean you do your job.
- They spend time on second jobs well if they have no minimum hours how do we know they are doing their MPs job. Then of course there is the conflict of interest in their second job you can drive a bus through that one.
- Except in 1 limited example the electorate cannot sack an MP until election time. So the likes of Anna Sourbry lies to her voters then changes parties and has the gall to refuse to call a by election.
- MPs get caught up in scandals which would be the sack for the rest of us (bringing your company's image into disrepute) but can cling on until the next election.

More importantly the powers of the PM are decided by a court (Boris) not by Parliament.

I could go on but you get the point.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 09 Jun 22 9.17am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Correct.

However far too much of our constitution is left for interpretation by the courts or historical precedent (Just because we did something in the past e.g. witches were drowned...).

I for one would like to see a bill detailing responsibilities and duties for the PM, ministers and back bench MPs. Most people have a work contract that details this and the consequences of breaking it e.g. if you steal we will sack you.

It is ridiculous in this day and age that MPs can pretty much do what they like and only the extreme examples are punished.

- They don't have minimum working hours for the HOC or their constituency offices.
- There are no performance related metrics e.g. just because you turn up doesn't mean you do your job.
- They spend time on second jobs well if they have no minimum hours how do we know they are doing their MPs job. Then of course there is the conflict of interest in their second job you can drive a bus through that one.
- Except in 1 limited example the electorate cannot sack an MP until election time. So the likes of Anna Sourbry lies to her voters then changes parties and has the gall to refuse to call a by election.
- MPs get caught up in scandals which would be the sack for the rest of us (bringing your company's image into disrepute) but can cling on until the next election.

More importantly the powers of the PM are decided by a court (Boris) not by Parliament.

I could go on but you get the point.

The political class get things so much more easy than those they rule over. I'd see those proposals as being very popular.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 09 Jun 22 10.00am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Correct.

However far too much of our constitution is left for interpretation by the courts or historical precedent (Just because we did something in the past e.g. witches were drowned...).

I for one would like to see a bill detailing responsibilities and duties for the PM, ministers and back bench MPs. Most people have a work contract that details this and the consequences of breaking it e.g. if you steal we will sack you.

It is ridiculous in this day and age that MPs can pretty much do what they like and only the extreme examples are punished.

- They don't have minimum working hours for the HOC or their constituency offices.
- There are no performance related metrics e.g. just because you turn up doesn't mean you do your job.
- They spend time on second jobs well if they have no minimum hours how do we know they are doing their MPs job. Then of course there is the conflict of interest in their second job you can drive a bus through that one.
- Except in 1 limited example the electorate cannot sack an MP until election time. So the likes of Anna Sourbry lies to her voters then changes parties and has the gall to refuse to call a by election.
- MPs get caught up in scandals which would be the sack for the rest of us (bringing your company's image into disrepute) but can cling on until the next election.

More importantly the powers of the PM are decided by a court (Boris) not by Parliament.

I could go on but you get the point.

That's our system! You vote for an individual and not a Party, although many people seem not to realise this, and the recent convention of adding party labels to ballot papers hasn't helped.

Be careful what you wish for. Making it mandatory for an MP to resign if they crossed the floor would put almost all the power in the hands of the government and not where, in my opinion, it needs to reside, in the hands of our representatives, the MPs. I want to see their power increased and not diminished.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 9 of 28 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Great Reset