BLAIR, his latest intervention. Should he shut up ?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
B'stard Child said:
Priceless 
The next vid up was Nick Clegg's car crash interview, thanks for double bubble entertainment!
B'stard Child said:
turbobloke said:
Jimboka said:
Deptford Draylons said:
JawKnee said:
I don't like the man but why should any one be shut up? We still live in a democracy in case you forgot.
People don't have to shut up about being a remainer and wishing the country hadn't voted to leave. If you are however someone like Farron and Blair ( and a good few on PH ) who don't like the result and wish to perform a stitch-up, then yeah, you might get told to shut up.It may have escaped your attention, but the anti brexit LDs gave the conservatives a pasting in a recent byelection & came close in the other. On the back of being the anti brexit alternative
The election of one or two posturing LibDem MPs in strong Remain areas abusing the vote as a referendum protest is hardly slick but definitely remoaner-voter manipulation. The election of that LibDem and any others won't make any difference.
After A50 these voters will be stuck with a LibDem MP living on planet Zorg while taking money from the public purse. Lucky them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-DHqFikHoA
Mothersruin said:
I can't understand why Blair and Mandelson gobbing off isn't scaring the hell out of everyone.
Easily the two most evil people to have graced British politics in the modern era.
That they're still even given a platform means people haven't learnt a lesson and these two are dangerous.
Because the BBC/Liberal Elite love them, they have the same way of thinking, eg "they" are thick and did not know what they were doing.Easily the two most evil people to have graced British politics in the modern era.
That they're still even given a platform means people haven't learnt a lesson and these two are dangerous.
Derek Smith said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As an example of Mandelsons faulty view point. he stated that only 37% of the UK`s population voted for leave, which might well be the true figure. What he forgot to point out, was that if the 37% of the population who voted leave figure was accurate, then it was an even smaller percentage of the UK`s population voted to remain.
He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
You are wrong. The 72% turn out was not the largest ever seen in UK political history, far from it in fact. The average turn out from after the war to the election of Blair in 79 was well above that. The figures are online and it was highlighted after the referendum.He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
Dare I say False News or is faulty view point more appropriate?
And that's not even taking into consideration the much higher turnout for the Scottish referendum.
Stickyfinger said:
Mothersruin said:
I can't understand why Blair and Mandelson gobbing off isn't scaring the hell out of everyone.
Easily the two most evil people to have graced British politics in the modern era.
That they're still even given a platform means people haven't learnt a lesson and these two are dangerous.
Because the BBC/Liberal Elite love them, they have the same way of thinking, eg "they" are thick and did not know what they were doing.Easily the two most evil people to have graced British politics in the modern era.
That they're still even given a platform means people haven't learnt a lesson and these two are dangerous.
verify said:
Derek Smith said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As an example of Mandelsons faulty view point. he stated that only 37% of the UK`s population voted for leave, which might well be the true figure. What he forgot to point out, was that if the 37% of the population who voted leave figure was accurate, then it was an even smaller percentage of the UK`s population voted to remain.
He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
You are wrong. The 72% turn out was not the largest ever seen in UK political history, far from it in fact. The average turn out from after the war to the election of Blair in 79 was well above that. The figures are online and it was highlighted after the referendum.He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
Dare I say False News or is faulty view point more appropriate?
And that's not even taking into consideration the much higher turnout for the Scottish referendum.
Talk about being hoisted.
The viewpoint relating to Mandy was spot on, and it didn't depend on the numbers or percentage voting.
verify said:
Derek Smith said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As an example of Mandelsons faulty view point. he stated that only 37% of the UK`s population voted for leave, which might well be the true figure. What he forgot to point out, was that if the 37% of the population who voted leave figure was accurate, then it was an even smaller percentage of the UK`s population voted to remain.
He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
You are wrong. The 72% turn out was not the largest ever seen in UK political history, far from it in fact. The average turn out from after the war to the election of Blair in 79 was well above that. The figures are online and it was highlighted after the referendum.He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
Dare I say False News or is faulty view point more appropriate?
And that's not even taking into consideration the much higher turnout for the Scottish referendum.
1997 General Election was 71.4%, 13,518,167 voted Labour.
Quite clearly the Blair 'landslide' had less of a mandate than the EU LEAVE vote, by any metric.
Mr GrimNasty said:
EU Referendum turn out was 72.2%, 17,410,742 voted leave.
1997 General Election was 71.4%, 13,518,167 voted Labour.
Quite clearly the Blair 'landslide' had less of a mandate than the EU LEAVE vote, by any metric.
1997 General Election was 71.4%, 13,518,167 voted Labour.
Quite clearly the Blair 'landslide' had less of a mandate than the EU LEAVE vote, by any metric.
Perhaps a poor comparison given there was only one choice to be made in the referendum but really, it doesn't matter.
Government lost sight of all of the people who've suffered at the hands of the EU, completely misread things and we voted to leave.
This "only 37%" voted Leave argument seems to have become the world's biggest Old Chestnut.
Somehow the Remain side have concluded that therefore 63% (100 - 37) actually voted to stay because they have managed to decide that all those that did note one way or the other voted to remain, which of course they did not. So Remain have claimed all the abstentions for themselves.
And the world's second biggest Old Chestnut is the parliamentary sovereignty argument that runs like this:
If Remain had won, that would be an end to the matter. But, Leave won. So now Remain claim one of the reasons people voted Leave was to regain parliamentary sovereignty and therefore parliament should vote (because it's what Leave wanted) to Remain.
So therefore : If Remain had won we should Remain but if Leave won, we should Remain anyway.
Somehow the Remain side have concluded that therefore 63% (100 - 37) actually voted to stay because they have managed to decide that all those that did note one way or the other voted to remain, which of course they did not. So Remain have claimed all the abstentions for themselves.
And the world's second biggest Old Chestnut is the parliamentary sovereignty argument that runs like this:
If Remain had won, that would be an end to the matter. But, Leave won. So now Remain claim one of the reasons people voted Leave was to regain parliamentary sovereignty and therefore parliament should vote (because it's what Leave wanted) to Remain.
So therefore : If Remain had won we should Remain but if Leave won, we should Remain anyway.
turbobloke said:
Talk about being hoisted.
You are arguing about a literal when the point was that the vote for the referendum did not qualify for the accolade of the highest ever in political history. Don't change the argument to something of no consequence. You run the danger of being accused of false news.
As an example:
turbobloke said:
The viewpoint relating to Mandy was spot on, and it didn't depend on the numbers or percentage voting.
Just to repeat, the statement that there was something exceptional about the turnout for the referendum was wrong. Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Talk about being hoisted.
The numbers you focused on didn't detract from the viewpoint on Mandy being spot on. We're both intelligent enough to get that, I trust.
Mr GrimNasty said:
verify said:
Derek Smith said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As an example of Mandelsons faulty view point. he stated that only 37% of the UK`s population voted for leave, which might well be the true figure. What he forgot to point out, was that if the 37% of the population who voted leave figure was accurate, then it was an even smaller percentage of the UK`s population voted to remain.
He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
You are wrong. The 72% turn out was not the largest ever seen in UK political history, far from it in fact. The average turn out from after the war to the election of Blair in 79 was well above that. The figures are online and it was highlighted after the referendum.He also managed to forget the fact, that the voter turn out for the 2016 referendum was the largest ever seen in UK political history. So his point about the `only 37%' when put in context was as useless, and vaporous, as everything else that comes out of the prince of slime.
Dare I say False News or is faulty view point more appropriate?
And that's not even taking into consideration the much higher turnout for the Scottish referendum.
1997 General Election was 71.4%, 13,518,167 voted Labour.
Quite clearly the Blair 'landslide' had less of a mandate than the EU LEAVE vote, by any metric.
turbobloke said:
B'stard Child said:
Priceless The next vid up was Nick Clegg's car crash interview, thanks for double bubble entertainment!
For a moment, I thought that was the BBC. I fainted...
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/
If anybody wants to follow the Adventures of His Messiahness...
The Office of Tony Blair
I'm running out of sick buckets, does anybody have a spare one?
If anybody wants to follow the Adventures of His Messiahness...
The Office of Tony Blair
I'm running out of sick buckets, does anybody have a spare one?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff