BLAIR, his latest intervention. Should he shut up ?

[Sparkyhd]

mybrainhurts said:

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?

Web site isn't optimised for mobile which is disappointing from someone in touch with current trends.

[rallycross]

mybrainhurts said:

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/page/s/contact

I'd just love to see what's landed in there...

I wonder if he reads any of the emails?

[Stickyfinger]

rallycross said:

I wonder if he reads any of the emails?

Why would he, they will all be from "dirty little thick people" who don't like him or what he is trying hard to tell the thick bigots

[PoleDriver]

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent.
Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

[Derek Smith]

PoleDriver said:

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent.
Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

It's not really funny.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thatcher+with+sa...

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

Talk about being hoisted.

Wrong: the error in the date did not, as I hope you are intelligent enough to understand, distract from the rejection of the claim that the 72% turnout was the largest ever in political history.

Right: you pointed out a numbers blooper but committed one yourself. 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.

I didn't focus on anything other than answer a point made by a previous poster. Something, perhaps, you might try?

Derek Smith said:

Just to repeat: the claim that the 72% turnout was the largest ever in political history was wrong.

[rallycross]

PoleDriver said:

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent.
Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

Haha great photo kind of sums everything you need to know about President elect Bliar.

[PurpleAki]

Derek Smith said:

PoleDriver said:

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent.
Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

It's not really funny.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thatcher+with+sa...

Yes it is.

[AC43]

Stickyfinger said:

YES.

discuss...................

Yes,

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

[Rich_W]

Derek Smith said:

PoleDriver said:

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent.
Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

It's not really funny.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thatcher+with+sa...

The irony is that she has a kind of fixed smile in the pics with Saville. Here eyes tell another story. I don't imagine she was a fan generally. But thought the PR value of a charity raiser was worth it. I don't think she would have been OK with it had she known what we know now. She DID have principles. Sometimes wrong, but she wouldn't have been ok with a fiddler. And she was prone to knowing she was wrong.

Blair and his self gratifying smile is far worse imo He was "never" wrong of course

[AC43]

Rich_W said:

Blair and his self gratifying smilee.......he was "never" wrong

John Smith did the hard yards.

Blair just fluked it when JS pegged it.

[Talksteer]

WinstonWolf said:

Talksteer said:

Rovinghawk said:

Vocal Minority said:

I don't think it was the right decision......... it's happened......... we need to get on with it.

I respect that attitude.

I presume because you voted out.

The current situation where we appear to be gearing up for the most devisive possible BREXIT after a referendum which was slimly won by one side is pretty anti democratic.

It is happening because of the lack of an opposition means that the greatest political threat to the government is from its own hardliners and their press.

As an example we are heading towards an economically damaging hard BREXIT to enable the UK to "take back control" on immigration.

If we look at polls on that most of the population minimally support that, however if you look at further polls of "how much are you willing to pay for control of immigration" the answer is nothing or very very little. Hence we should probably be heading for a Norway/Switzerland type agreement.

Given the lack of broad support for leaving the EU and the lack of an opposition to hold the government to account during the negotiations I think the terms of BREXIT should be subject to a public vote and in this area I support Blair.

So you want to keep holding referendums until you get a result that supports your viewpoint?

That's not how democracy works. Sorry.

Democracy doesn't work in any specific way. Other than that the country is governed by the consent of it's people.

Irrevocable policy should only be made by broad based support. This is why most countries with constitutions require super majorities to change them.

Anyone want to contest that.

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

[davepoth]

Talksteer said:

Anyone want to contest that.

I do!

Talksteer said:

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

Not possible. A soft Brexit has not really been on the cards since the 24th of June, the EU has made that clear. Hard Brexit is the only viable option, and Theresa May has to make it look like she means it. Dilly-dallying or pandering won't help with getting a good deal.

Talksteer said:

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

Article 50 is irrevocable. It's either the deal we get or we leave with no deal. A vote on that is pointless.

Talksteer said:

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

That's the fault of the 48%. You can always set up a political party if you aren't happy with the ones we already have.

[oyster]

Pan Pan Pan said:

This is the person who gave away billions of UK tax payers cash (for absolutely nothing) in the hope it would give him a shoo in to the EU presidents job.
The person who invited millions to come to the UK with promises of free housing, benefits, and health care, in the hope it would increase voter numbers for labour.
The person responsible for the deaths of many in the UK`s military on the strength of a lie, in the hope it would boost his popularity, in the same way Thatchers Falklands conflict bolstered her position.
Blair should be standing up in front of the UK`s people, but not at a microphone, but in front of a white wall, with a blindfold on, for crimes against the UK.
The only positive thing is that everyone with more than a few brain cells knows that Blair is a liar (hence the appropriate modification of his name to Bliar) so if Blair is advocating people rise up against Brexit, those of sound mind, and with a half decent memory can be absolutely positive that doing the exact opposite of what he says, is the correct path to take.

I can't stand Blair, but he did all those things with a democratic mandate. The same democratic mandate you're now suggesting he abide by.

I'd have thought by now that any Brexiteer would accept the will of the people, in all its guises. Unless you think democracy is only so if the electorate vote to your view?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

Talk about being hoisted.

Wrong: the error in the date did not, as I hope you are intelligent enough to understand, distract from the rejection of the claim that the 72% turnout was the largest ever in political history. My mistake was a literal. His mistake was either intentionally misleading or just a hope. So my point still stands. The average, I've since discovered, between the first post war elections and Blair's first election, whenever it was, was well in excess of 72%.

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.

Doesn't really matter. The prince of slime, by quoting the 37% figure, was trying to belittle the vote for leave. But using exactly the same metric, if Mandelson was trying to say that the number of people who voted leave was only a small proportion of the UK`s population, that means the number of people who voted for remain was even smaller. Which is why they lost the leave/remain referendum.

[brenflys777]

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

Anyone want to contest that.

I do!

Talksteer said:

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

Not possible. A soft Brexit has not really been on the cards since the 24th of June, the EU has made that clear. Hard Brexit is the only viable option, and Theresa May has to make it look like she means it. Dilly-dallying or pandering won't help with getting a good deal.

Had the result been to remain with 48% wanting to leave, would Blair et al now be demanding that whilst the public voted to remain, the wishes of the minority need to be represented, so we can respect the result but we must leave the SM or impose restrictions on Free Movement of People etc... No, it's nonsense.

The only positive I can see from this intervention is that if Blair and others succeed in encouraging the Lords to delay Brexit, we may not only exit the EU but in 2020 we may see the next government in office on a manifesto of reforming the Lords too. Blair promised to reform and replaced hereditary peers with political sycophants, things can only get better.

[Derek Smith]

Talksteer said:

Democracy doesn't work in any specific way. Other than that the country is governed by the consent of it's people.

Irrevocable policy should only be made by broad based support. This is why most countries with constitutions require super majorities to change them.

Anyone want to contest that.

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

Agreed. Nice and clear statement.

[0000]

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

Not possible.

Their views have been and continue to be considered. They all got a vote and the chance to campaign and persuade others that their option was preferable before that vote.

Unfortunately for them, that doesn't mean they get to directly dictate anything. Much like leave voters before the vote, except they didn't get the same say.

[turbobloke]

Bliar's mate Lord Mandy has also made it very clear.

Asked if there was going to be a long parliamentary battle over the A50 Bill, he replied: “At the end of the day the House of Commons must prevail because it is the elected chamber."

Meanwhile if the Lords decides to get uppity, it won't stop the inevitable but we're wasting time to humour a few unelected out-of-touch windbags.

[0000]

Talksteer said:

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

The Liberal Democrats? Reject them by all means, but any other political entity representing the 48% can be rejected by others too. Much like many of the leave entities before the vote.