Tim Farron

[technodup]

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

[Esseesse]

perdu said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

and if it just remained a "Common Market" I suspect we would still be quite happy within it.

Well I would have, even if the lady wife (did I really just write that? eek!) did not and to this day blames me for everything that has gone awry since

A common market with its much vaunted ideals was exactly what I wanted in 1975 and would still satisfy me now

Shame isn't it...

Would it? It wasn't simply a free trade area even then. IIRC it was already a customs union, destroyed trading relationships with the commonwealth and prevented us from balancing our trade or protecting industry etc etc.

The term 'Common Market' was just Heaths voter friendly branding. It was also known back then where it was going, you can find the 'NO' leaflet from 1975 online which pretty clearly explains things.

Edited by Esseesse on Friday 20th January 10:17

[MarshPhantom]

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

[iphonedyou]

MarshPhantom said:

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

[audidoody]

I'm halfway through reading this.



If you remain a "Remainer" I recommend you read it too.

[Mark Benson]

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

[Mark Benson]

MarshPhantom said:

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

But Clegg wasn't PM.

You said 'they've never been in power', they have.

[MarshPhantom]

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

But being a junior partner in a coalition isn't the same as being in power, and Clegg wasn't PM.

[oyster]

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Bitter and irrelevant. Maybe he should join the SNP.

8 times as much airtime as UKIP?

[TTwiggy]

Hosenbugler said:

I now place Minor Fart, and the rest of the Not Liberal, Not Democratic clowns in the same idiot bin as the Labour Party . Perhaps I've been naive, I used to think of them as principled people, and , on occasion, when the "least worst" have needed punishing , they have had my vote.

Never again, their actions post referenda has been deplorable, if that word is enough , no respect for the elctorate at all, utter s

P/S Yes, minor fart is an anagram . Which poses the question of just who sits down and works such things out

I really don't get this POV. It's like all debate post June 23rd is forbidden. Utterly bonkers to suggest that a party can't campaign to go against the new status quo.

[Mark Benson]

MarshPhantom said:

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

But being a junior partner in a coalition isn't the same as being in power, and Clegg wasn't PM.

• sigh*

His point was that UKIP have achieved pretty much what they set out to and have had not the merest sniff of power. Whereas the Lib Dems formed part of the government for 5 years and achieved.....what?

[FN2TypeR]

Mark Benson said:

• sigh*

His point was that UKIP have achieved pretty much what they set out to and have had not the merest sniff of power. Whereas the Lib Dems formed part of the government for 5 years and achieved.....what?

Their own electoral ruination.

It was hilarious.

[MarshPhantom]

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

But being a junior partner in a coalition isn't the same as being in power, and Clegg wasn't PM.

• sigh*

His point was that UKIP have achieved pretty much what they set out to and have had not the merest sniff of power. Whereas the Lib Dems formed part of the government for 5 years and achieved.....what?

There really is no point trying to argue with idiots

[technodup]

oyster said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Bitter and irrelevant. Maybe he should join the SNP.

8 times as much airtime as UKIP?

Fine then, give him it. Let's see what he achieves with it.

My guess is fk all. Pointless waste of oxygen.

[Blib]

Jasandjules said:

Blib said:

Say what you like about him. At least Fallon is giving a voice to the many millions who voted Remain.

Um, they had a voice, that was when they voted. It's just they lost.

That is how voting and elections and things work.

But now we seem to have people who are a product of the "give everyone a medal for turning up" brigade who throw their toys out of the pram at every point and throw a tantrum on the floor screaming "but it's not faaaaaaiiirrrr" etc etc

More people voted to leave than remain, so be it, if you believe in Democracy and not a dictatorship then that is the end of it is it not? Or do people believe in democracy only when it goes their way?

This is the problem with Referenda. This issue is not black and white. No democracy can afford to ignore the wishes of 49% of people who voted. Their views must be put forward and given a voice.

Telling half the voters to, "Shut up", is not democracy, in my opinion.

[Murph7355]

Blib said:

This is the problem with Referenda. This issue is not black and white. No democracy can afford to ignore the wishes of 49% of people who voted. Their views must be put forward and given a voice.

Telling half the voters to, "Shut up", is not democracy, in my opinion.

The question asked was very black and white. You were left to assess how to remove the shades of grey yourself. Which is fair enough.

Nobody's ignoring the 48%. But the nature of the question asked at referendum time makes it quite tricky appeasing them.

And anyway, what happens in a GE? A lot of people get ignored/disenfranchised then. Which isn't to say that's right....but if you want to come up with a better system I'm sure everyone will listen

I'm not sure anyone's really being asked to shut up either. Though it'd be helpful if more constructive voices were being heard (rather than people like Thornberry talking the country down and then trying to deny it!).

If people of a Remain persuasion had done more of that things might have gone very differently. With the might of government, public money, home grown and foreign celebrities being thrown at it, plus 40yrs of incontrovertible evidence of how much a "good thing" the EU was, the result was a bit surprising....until you realise that all the Remain campaign really did was focus on doom and gloom and calling people racist or idiots or both (step forward Mr Farron who seems to think continuing with this is wise). A change of tack is now called for IMO.

[Derek Smith]

Blib said:

This is the problem with Referenda. This issue is not black and white. No democracy can afford to ignore the wishes of 49% of people who voted. Their views must be put forward and given a voice.

Telling half the voters to, "Shut up", is not democracy, in my opinion.

You could also suggest that he gives a voice to the three quarters of 18 to 25 year olds who voted to remain. Or, of course, the 62% of people who did not vote to leave.

There is parliamentary democracy, and there is referenda. It is easy to mix up the two.

[Blib]

Murph7355 said:

Blib said:

This is the problem with Referenda. This issue is not black and white. No democracy can afford to ignore the wishes of 49% of people who voted. Their views must be put forward and given a voice.

Telling half the voters to, "Shut up", is not democracy, in my opinion.

The question asked was very black and white. You were left to assess how to remove the shades of grey yourself. Which is fair enough.

Nobody's ignoring the 48%. But the nature of the question asked at referendum time makes it quite tricky appeasing them.

And anyway, what happens in a GE? A lot of people get ignored/disenfranchised then. Which isn't to say that's right....but if you want to come up with a better system I'm sure everyone will listen

I'm not sure anyone's really being asked to shut up either. Though it'd be helpful if more constructive voices were being heard (rather than people like Thornberry talking the country down and then trying to deny it!).

If people of a Remain persuasion had done more of that things might have gone very differently. With the might of government, public money, home grown and foreign celebrities being thrown at it, plus 40yrs of incontrovertible evidence of how much a "good thing" the EU was, the result was a bit surprising....until you realise that all the Remain campaign really did was focus on doom and gloom and calling people racist or idiots or both (step forward Mr Farron who seems to think continuing with this is wise). A change of tack is now called for IMO.

So, not shut up then? More 'toe the line'. Farron has every rght to put his view across. It's his job!

[RemyMartin81D]

MarshPhantom said:

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

Mark Benson said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

MarshPhantom said:

technodup said:

The smelly wee runt shouldn't be given any airtime or press coverage whatsoever. He's got eight fking MPs. He's utterly irrelevant.

Nine MPs, that's eight more than UKIP. So what does that say about UKIP?

Not sure why you're laughing? Firstly I don't speak for UKIP.

And secondly UKIP have (almost) achieved their raison detre with a single MP (and would probably have done it without him tbh). The LibDems had dozens of MPs, were in coalition and achieved what exactly? No tuition fees? Nope. AV? Nope. Closer European integration? Nope.

What does that say about UKIP? It says they (well mainly Farage) are a phenomenally successful single issue party who have shaped the future of the UK for generations to come. In spite of the inbuilt disadvantage FPTP creates for minor parties.

What have the LibDems ever done for us?

I just don't recall anyone on PH saying Farage and UKIP were an irrelavence that didn't deserve airtime because they only had one MP.

Lib haven't done much for us because they've never been in power.

Well, apart from the 5 years they were in coalition. But you're right, they were an irrelevance then.

I'm no Kipper, but it's clear to see how much influence they've had on politics in the last few years.

But being a junior partner in a coalition isn't the same as being in power, and Clegg wasn't PM.

• sigh*

His point was that UKIP have achieved pretty much what they set out to and have had not the merest sniff of power. Whereas the Lib Dems formed part of the government for 5 years and achieved.....what?

There really is no point trying to argue with idiots

Because you don't have an answer. Now flounce the fk off and don't let the door hit you in the arse. You clearly lack any semblance of a reasoned debate. My retort is simply mocking that stance.

[ThunderGuts]

He does this, gets a time out, does it again