Boris is toast.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 12 of 69 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Jan 22 10.33am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You would though, wouldn't you? You are typical fodder for a populist's agenda, dutifully lapping up their simple answers to complex issues. I don't doubt you would like to replace our representative democracy with one where we elected delegates who are told by a local cabal of the majority party in their constituency how to vote on everything. That is just your perception, which is in itself simplistic. The complexity of an issue does not determine policy. Too often, policy is decided for short term benefit which reflects the nature of our parliamentary system. Immigration is an example of this.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Jan 22 10.33am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You would though, wouldn't you? You are typical fodder for a populist's agenda, dutifully lapping up their simple answers to complex issues.

I don't doubt you would like to replace our representative democracy with one where we elected delegates who are told by a local cabal of the majority party in their constituency how to vote on everything.

That is just your perception, which is in itself simplistic.

The complexity of an issue does not determine policy. Too often, policy is decided for short term benefit which reflects the nature of our parliamentary system. Immigration is an example of this.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 12.44pm
Originally posted by cryrst 'For the many, not the few' ring a bell then ! Not in my ears. Maybe you have tinnitus? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 12.44pm

Originally posted by cryrst

'For the many, not the few' ring a bell then !

Not in my ears. Maybe you have tinnitus?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 14 Jan 22 12.44pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No-one wanted to over-turn the result. What was asked for was for the people to confirm, after a 4 year delay, lots of revelations and time for re-thinking, that it was still their wish to take such a momentous step. Usual disemmbling from the self-identifying 'one nation tory'. Of course the Remainers wanted to overturn the referendum result. We were told that the vote was 'once in a lifetime' and that there would be no second referendum. If we did have your second referendum, would you have another one after another 4 years. I expect you would if had still voted to leave and of course you would not if we voted to rejoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

14 Jan 22 12.44pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No-one wanted to over-turn the result. What was asked for was for the people to confirm, after a 4 year delay, lots of revelations and time for re-thinking, that it was still their wish to take such a momentous step.

Usual disemmbling from the self-identifying 'one nation tory'.
Of course the Remainers wanted to overturn the referendum result. We were told that the vote was 'once in a lifetime' and that there would be no second referendum.
If we did have your second referendum, would you have another one after another 4 years. I expect you would if had still voted to leave and of course you would not if we voted to rejoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 12.58pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That is just your perception, which is in itself simplistic. The complexity of an issue does not determine policy. Too often, policy is decided for short term benefit which reflects the nature of our parliamentary system. Immigration is an example of this. Where do I suggest it does? I am referring to the use of one line terms by populist politicians to describe simple answers to complex issues. This, of itself, will often produce exactly the kind of result you complain about. Your obsession with immigration as the primary fault line blighting both our social development, and our politics, is indeed an example. It's an example of a populist's response to a complex problem. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 12.58pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is just your perception, which is in itself simplistic.

The complexity of an issue does not determine policy. Too often, policy is decided for short term benefit which reflects the nature of our parliamentary system. Immigration is an example of this.

Where do I suggest it does?

I am referring to the use of one line terms by populist politicians to describe simple answers to complex issues. This, of itself, will often produce exactly the kind of result you complain about.

Your obsession with immigration as the primary fault line blighting both our social development, and our politics, is indeed an example. It's an example of a populist's response to a complex problem.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Jan 22 1.04pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Where do I suggest it does? I am referring to the use of one line terms by populist politicians to describe simple answers to complex issues. This, of itself, will often produce exactly the kind of result you complain about. Your obsession with immigration as the primary fault line blighting both our social development, and our politics, is indeed an example. It's an example of a populist's response to a complex problem. It's not an obsession, it is an observation and criticism. Whether you accept it or not, it is a major factor in many of our current problems. That is not my invention. You should talk about obsession. You are still whining about Brexit on every thread.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Jan 22 1.04pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Where do I suggest it does?

I am referring to the use of one line terms by populist politicians to describe simple answers to complex issues. This, of itself, will often produce exactly the kind of result you complain about.

Your obsession with immigration as the primary fault line blighting both our social development, and our politics, is indeed an example. It's an example of a populist's response to a complex problem.

It's not an obsession, it is an observation and criticism. Whether you accept it or not, it is a major factor in many of our current problems. That is not my invention.

You should talk about obsession. You are still whining about Brexit on every thread.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 1.11pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Usual disemmbling from the self-identifying 'one nation tory'. Of course the Remainers wanted to overturn the referendum result. We were told that the vote was 'once in a lifetime' and that there would be no second referendum. If we did have your second referendum, would you have another one after another 4 years. I expect you would if had still voted to leave and of course you would not if we voted to rejoin. There were many decent, responsible and visionary politicians, one nation Tories among them, who saw the need for confirmation and were shafted as a consequence by a despicable PM and his backers. I didn't want that myself. I wanted Parliament to take charge, but saw the political wisdom of having made the mistake of allowing a referendum to be held in 2016 it would be wise to hold another. Of course there that would have been the end of it. You cannot go on endlessly with such a programme, but there were solid, indeed overwhelming reasons, to verify as so much had been revealed that was obscured in 2016. If Brexit was indeed still what the country wanted why should any Brexiteer resist checking it? It seems to me they knew the game was going to be lost, so they were desperate to blow the whistle. This isn't forgotten and will be served up cold when the time is right and the mood of the country ready to receive it. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Jan 22 1.11pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

There were many decent, responsible and visionary politicians, one nation Tories among them, who saw the need for confirmation and were shafted as a consequence by a despicable PM and his backers. I didn't want that myself. I wanted Parliament to take charge, but saw the political wisdom of having made the mistake of allowing a referendum to be held in 2016 it would be wise to hold another.

If Brexit was indeed still what the country wanted why should any Brexiteer resist checking it? It seems to me they knew the game was going to be lost, so they were desperate to blow the whistle.

This isn't forgotten and will be served up cold when the time is right and the mood of the country ready to receive it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 14 Jan 22 1.22pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There were many decent, responsible and visionary politicians, one nation Tories among them, who saw the need for confirmation and were shafted as a consequence by a despicable PM and his backers. I didn't want that myself. I wanted Parliament to take charge, but saw the political wisdom of having made the mistake of allowing a referendum to be held in 2016 it would be wise to hold another. Of course there that would have been the end of it. You cannot go on endlessly with such a programme, but there were solid, indeed overwhelming reasons, to verify as so much had been revealed that was obscured in 2016. If Brexit was indeed still what the country wanted why should any Brexiteer resist checking it? It seems to me they knew the game was going to be lost, so they were desperate to blow the whistle. This isn't forgotten and will be served up cold when the time is right and the mood of the country ready to receive it. But it doesn't work the other way? Did you argue that we should check if we were still OK in the EU? 40 years we were denied a vote by the major parties even though the EU changed out of all recognition from the Common Market. you weren't complaining then even though the EU was not what we signed up for. Edited by Badger11 (14 Jan 2022 1.25pm) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 14 Jan 22 1.22pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course there that would have been the end of it. You cannot go on endlessly with such a programme, but there were solid, indeed overwhelming reasons, to verify as so much had been revealed that was obscured in 2016.

If Brexit was indeed still what the country wanted why should any Brexiteer resist checking it? It seems to me they knew the game was going to be lost, so they were desperate to blow the whistle.

This isn't forgotten and will be served up cold when the time is right and the mood of the country ready to receive it.

But it doesn't work the other way? Did you argue that we should check if we were still OK in the EU?

40 years we were denied a vote by the major parties even though the EU changed out of all recognition from the Common Market. you weren't complaining then even though the EU was not what we signed up for.

Edited by Badger11 (14 Jan 2022 1.25pm)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Phil�s Barber Crowborough 14 Jan 22 1.31pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I realise that Parliament voted to both hold and honour the referendum, so as a consequence everything was done legally. That's not the issue. Our Parliament failed to do their duty. The Tories only agreed to hold one to stave off UKIP, and there were sufficient weaklings in the opposition scared of losing their seats to ensure it happened. Parliament bottled it when they needed to stand up and be counted. If that meant being counted out that was just tough. Johnson didn't win because Labour tried to over-turn the result. That's garbage. He won because of clever marketing, boredom, trickery and the lack of any kind of rational opposition. No-one wanted to over-turn the result. What was asked for was for the people to confirm, after a 4 year delay, lots of revelations and time for re-thinking, that it was still their wish to take such a momentous step. If the Brexiteers were so confident of their case, what were they fearful of? Surely any true democrat welcomes the opportunity to verify the will of the people? Of course 52 is bigger than 48 but anyone who believes that's part of the argument, let alone the end of it, really doesn't get it at all. Of course, I don't "own" any of Johnson's failings. I could see them years ago. For the reasons I explained above Johnson's victory had nothing to do with any attempt to over-turn the referendum result. It was clever work by Cummings and a desperately awful opposition, combined with a very tired electorate that just wanted it over. Clever marketing slogans are what you use to sell soap powder. It's not the way to run a country. Thank you for giving me such a laugh on a cold, murky Friday. Not for many years have I read such a disconnected, desperate, biased and misguided take on Brexit, the referendum, the endorsement in the European Elections and the overwhelming message sent in the 2019 General Election.
Alert a moderator to this post

Phil�s Barber

Crowborough 14 Jan 22 1.31pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I realise that Parliament voted to both hold and honour the referendum, so as a consequence everything was done legally. That's not the issue. Our Parliament failed to do their duty. The Tories only agreed to hold one to stave off UKIP, and there were sufficient weaklings in the opposition scared of losing their seats to ensure it happened. Parliament bottled it when they needed to stand up and be counted. If that meant being counted out that was just tough.

Johnson didn't win because Labour tried to over-turn the result. That's garbage. He won because of clever marketing, boredom, trickery and the lack of any kind of rational opposition. No-one wanted to over-turn the result. What was asked for was for the people to confirm, after a 4 year delay, lots of revelations and time for re-thinking, that it was still their wish to take such a momentous step. If the Brexiteers were so confident of their case, what were they fearful of? Surely any true democrat welcomes the opportunity to verify the will of the people? Of course 52 is bigger than 48 but anyone who believes that's part of the argument, let alone the end of it, really doesn't get it at all.

Of course, I don't "own" any of Johnson's failings. I could see them years ago. For the reasons I explained above Johnson's victory had nothing to do with any attempt to over-turn the referendum result. It was clever work by Cummings and a desperately awful opposition, combined with a very tired electorate that just wanted it over. Clever marketing slogans are what you use to sell soap powder. It's not the way to run a country.

Thank you for giving me such a laugh on a cold, murky Friday.

Not for many years have I read such a disconnected, desperate, biased and misguided take on Brexit, the referendum, the endorsement in the European Elections and the overwhelming message sent in the 2019 General Election.

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 14 Jan 22 2.26pm
No Context Brits (@NoContextBrits) Tweeted: [Link] [Tweet Link] Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 14 Jan 22 2.26pm

No Context Brits (@NoContextBrits) Tweeted:
[Link]

[Tweet Link]

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Jan 22 2.30pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC No Context Brits (@NoContextBrits) Tweeted: [Link] [Tweet Link] Oh man, that's highly amusing! 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

14 Jan 22 2.30pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

No Context Brits (@NoContextBrits) Tweeted:
[Link]

[Tweet Link]

Oh man, that's highly amusing!

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

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 14 Jan 22 2.31pm
Boris lookalike me thinks?
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

14 Jan 22 2.31pm

Boris lookalike me thinks?

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 14 Jan 22 2.35pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Oh man, that's highly amusing! The next Darth Vader needs to improve their sabre craft. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 14 Jan 22 2.35pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Oh man, that's highly amusing!

The next Darth Vader needs to improve their sabre craft.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 12 of 69 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Boris is toast.

Site Map

Sponsors