Heseltine Sacked
Discussion
A well thought out response but there are a few issues that can be picked up from it
“a person who changes from one opinion to an opposite one in a way that shows they are not loyal to people who share the original opinion “
Some other dictionaries define it as someone who shifts their allegiance from one (political) party to another. If you want to find a multiple “turncoat” under that definition you could read the political history of Winston Churchill.
Heseltine has not changed parties, or even indeed advocated that anybody else should. He has said that given the choice of a labour government OR Brexit he would prefer the former. He further qualified that by saying that the damage a labour government could do could be put right after a subsequent election (which is true), and that may not be the case with Brexit.
But if you then start arguing that MPs should always vote in line with the wishes of the majority of their constituents, then that leaves people like John Redwood in a bit of a quandary, because the electorate in his constituency voted remain in the referendum. But is his blatantly ignoring the will of his constituents OK with you because he supports your stance on brexit? If so, what’s democratic about it by your definition?
I find it interesting if not revealing hat you use the word “heresy” The Collins dictionary has this to say:
"1. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action that most people think is wrong, because it disagrees with beliefs that are generally accepted.
It might be considered heresy to suggest such a notion.
Synonyms: unorthodoxy, apostasy, dissidence, impiety
2. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action which seriously disagrees with the principles of a particular religion.
He said it was a heresy to suggest that women should not conduct services."
The word is usually used in a religious context, and it has become increasingly clear that Brexit is quickly becoming a form of religion in terms of thought processes. The main problem with religions – all of them – is that the deity can do no wrong. If something good happens “Praise Be to God” –If something bad happens it’s always somebody else’s fault – the Devils work, the evils of Mankind – whatever. It’s never God’s fault, is it?
With Brexit, those who oppose it are called remainers, remoaners, remainiacs, traitors, unpatriotic, enemies of the people and now, with your post, we have “heretics” I wonder if the population would endorse the reintroduction of burning at the stake for those that voted remain – once the party machine has rounded us all up. It’s not all that far from where we are already – death threats and one MP murdered by a Brexit nutter.
It makes me think – what about you?
Thorodin said:
Turncoat? That means renegade. Pretty accurate I thought.
The Cambridge dictionary doesn’t agree with you. It says: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...“a person who changes from one opinion to an opposite one in a way that shows they are not loyal to people who share the original opinion “
Some other dictionaries define it as someone who shifts their allegiance from one (political) party to another. If you want to find a multiple “turncoat” under that definition you could read the political history of Winston Churchill.
Heseltine has not changed parties, or even indeed advocated that anybody else should. He has said that given the choice of a labour government OR Brexit he would prefer the former. He further qualified that by saying that the damage a labour government could do could be put right after a subsequent election (which is true), and that may not be the case with Brexit.
Thorodin said:
On a general but associated note, where do you place electoral choice? Or do they have none other than in a general election? Useful to bear in mind that although Leave or Remain was in no manifesto but the referendum was, along with the promise that it would be recognised. That’s democracy.
The reason we have democratic representatives is that they can make decisions on our behalf after being in possession of, and looking at, all the facts of a given matter. Democracy does not necessarily mean that the will of the majority of the people shall always prevail and nor should it. If it did we would have brought back capital punishment and sod the consequences of the state murdering innocent people by mistake now and again (as has happened in the past as you know). We would also possibly have reintroduced conscription despite that fact that the armed forces themselves didn’t want conscripts when they last had them pre-1960. There are plenty more examples that could go on that list.But if you then start arguing that MPs should always vote in line with the wishes of the majority of their constituents, then that leaves people like John Redwood in a bit of a quandary, because the electorate in his constituency voted remain in the referendum. But is his blatantly ignoring the will of his constituents OK with you because he supports your stance on brexit? If so, what’s democratic about it by your definition?
Thorodin said:
Nobody really knows but I would have thought the rest of the so-called civilised world would look long and hard at that and wish they had the progressive government we have.
I think you may have been reading too much George Orwell Thorodin said:
Talking of bedfellows, to conflate cruelly vicious dictators with those elected MP’s who consider the wishes of the majority of their constituents and put them first is more than a bit strong.
You misinterpret my words. There were two points – the first was that there are and have been regimes across the world and through history who do not countenance opposition. I gave examples of a few and I was not condoning their means of doing it. Does it just happen that my examples were unpleasant people, and there were other examples of such regimes that I missed that were more benign? If you can think of a few please post up some examples because I can’t think of any. The nearest I can think of is the National party in South Africa under apartheid who may have seemed benign to whites in that country, but I doubt that the other races would agree with you.Thorodin said:
Further, to help to make it possible for an alternative government, self-confessed totalitarian followers of Marx and Lenin in its composition, to replace the present one as Heseltine has done is, to most of the electorate, heresy.
But he hasn’t has he? See my reply further up the page – he said a labour government would be better than Brexit BECAUSE that would be easier to put right than Brexit. I find it interesting if not revealing hat you use the word “heresy” The Collins dictionary has this to say:
"1. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action that most people think is wrong, because it disagrees with beliefs that are generally accepted.
It might be considered heresy to suggest such a notion.
Synonyms: unorthodoxy, apostasy, dissidence, impiety
2. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action which seriously disagrees with the principles of a particular religion.
He said it was a heresy to suggest that women should not conduct services."
The word is usually used in a religious context, and it has become increasingly clear that Brexit is quickly becoming a form of religion in terms of thought processes. The main problem with religions – all of them – is that the deity can do no wrong. If something good happens “Praise Be to God” –If something bad happens it’s always somebody else’s fault – the Devils work, the evils of Mankind – whatever. It’s never God’s fault, is it?
With Brexit, those who oppose it are called remainers, remoaners, remainiacs, traitors, unpatriotic, enemies of the people and now, with your post, we have “heretics” I wonder if the population would endorse the reintroduction of burning at the stake for those that voted remain – once the party machine has rounded us all up. It’s not all that far from where we are already – death threats and one MP murdered by a Brexit nutter.
It makes me think – what about you?
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 28th December 19:49
rs1952 said:
The reason we have democratic representatives is that they can make decisions on our behalf after being in possession of, and looking at, all the facts of a given matter.
Those democratic representatives voted by a large majority that they were not able to answer the question themselves on whether we should continue as an EU member or change direction and leave the EU, so those democratic representatives voted for the people to decide the issue directly via a referendum.The result of that decision by our democratic representatives is now being enacted by our democratic representatives.
jsf said:
Those democratic representatives voted by a large majority that they were not able to answer the question themselves on whether we should continue as an EU member or change direction and leave the EU, so those democratic representatives voted for the people to decide the issue directly via a referendum.
No they didn't, at least not in this reality. You statement is pure fantasy.Tory MPs were given a three line whip because Cameron was aware that a significant number of his own party, all of the libdems and a majority of labour would vote against the referendum. There were stories, leaked by MPs who wanted to vote against the referendum, that they had been threatened.
The vast majority of MPs believed that they could indeed answer the question themselves. The referendum vote was anti democratic in the sense that if your MP was tory, then his or her wishes in the matter were ignored.
Derek Smith said:
jsf said:
Those democratic representatives voted by a large majority that they were not able to answer the question themselves on whether we should continue as an EU member or change direction and leave the EU, so those democratic representatives voted for the people to decide the issue directly via a referendum.
No they didn'tjsf said:
Derek Smith said:
jsf said:
Those democratic representatives voted by a large majority that they were not able to answer the question themselves on whether we should continue as an EU member or change direction and leave the EU, so those democratic representatives voted for the people to decide the issue directly via a referendum.
No they didn'tDerek Smith said:
jsf said:
Those democratic representatives voted by a large majority that they were not able to answer the question themselves on whether we should continue as an EU member or change direction and leave the EU, so those democratic representatives voted for the people to decide the issue directly via a referendum.
No they didn't, at least not in this reality. You statement is pure fantasy.Tory MPs were given a three line whip because Cameron was aware that a significant number of his own party, all of the libdems and a majority of labour would vote against the referendum. There were stories, leaked by MPs who wanted to vote against the referendum, that they had been threatened.
The vast majority of MPs believed that they could indeed answer the question themselves. The referendum vote was anti democratic in the sense that if your MP was tory, then his or her wishes in the matter were ignored.
You mix up events a lot Derek, maybe you can spend more time researching before you post.
rs1952 said:
And when you've finished the rerun of Monty Python's "argument" sketch, what have you got to say to rebut Derek's post that will withstand the test of scrutiny?
See my reply below yours for detailed links.2011 three line whip on the Tories to vote against holding a referendum
2015 no whip and full support by Torie and Labour for a referendum, Labour changing its position post the 2015 election loss for an official backing of holding a referendum. Torrie position for holding a referendum was in the manifesto.
So i'm sorry, but Derek was talking out of his arse.
jsf said:
rs1952 said:
And when you've finished the rerun of Monty Python's "argument" sketch, what have you got to say to rebut Derek's post that will withstand the test of scrutiny?
See my reply below yours for detailed links.2011 three line whip on the Tories to vote against holding a referendum
2015 no whip and full support by Torie and Labour for a referendum, Labour changing its position post the 2015 election loss for an official backing of holding a referendum. Torrie position for holding a referendum was in the manifesto.
So i'm sorry, but Derek was talking out of his arse.
jsf said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
My recollection was that the 2015 vote was whipped as Derek says
It was a manifesto promise to hold a referendum.You don't whip against your own manifesto promise.
You too need to refresh your references and recollections.
ClaphamGT3 said:
gooner1 said:
If the 2015 vote was whipped, it was comically iineffcient.
MP's voted 544 to 53 in favour of the referendum.
Unless of cours you mean MP's were threatened to vote for the referendum.
:
The Conservative MPs were whipped to vote in favourMP's voted 544 to 53 in favour of the referendum.
Unless of cours you mean MP's were threatened to vote for the referendum.
:ClaphamGT3 said:
gooner1 said:
If the 2015 vote was whipped, it was comically iineffcient.
MP's voted 544 to 53 in favour of the referendum.
Unless of cours you mean MP's were threatened to vote for the referendum.:
The Conservative MPs were whipped to vote in favourMP's voted 544 to 53 in favour of the referendum.
Unless of cours you mean MP's were threatened to vote for the referendum.
:They didn't whip the general vote on the referendum bill, they didn't have to.
rs1952 said:
But he hasn’t has he? See my reply further up the page – he said a labour government would be better than Brexit BECAUSE that would be easier to put right than Brexit.
I find it interesting if not revealing hat you use the word “heresy” The Collins dictionary has this to say:
"1. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action that most people think is wrong, because it disagrees with beliefs that are generally accepted.
It might be considered heresy to suggest such a notion.
Synonyms: unorthodoxy, apostasy, dissidence, impiety
2. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action which seriously disagrees with the principles of a particular religion.
He said it was a heresy to suggest that women should not conduct services."
The word is usually used in a religious context, and it has become increasingly clear that Brexit is quickly becoming a form of religion in terms of thought processes. The main problem with religions – all of them – is that the deity can do no wrong. If something good happens “Praise Be to God” –If something bad happens it’s always somebody else’s fault – the Devils work, the evils of Mankind – whatever. It’s never God’s fault, is it?
With Brexit, those who oppose it are called remainers, remoaners, remainiacs, traitors, unpatriotic, enemies of the people and now, with your post, we have “heretics” I wonder if the population would endorse the reintroduction of burning at the stake for those that voted remain – once the party machine has rounded us all up. It’s not all that far from where we are already – death threats and one MP murdered by a Brexit nutter.
It makes me think – what about you?
What makes me think is your obsessive pedantry with definitions of words. If it's OK with you I prefer to use my own reference source - equal in authority and general acceptance to yours. You continue to conflate disparate events and people with a miasma of opinion offered as facts. Impressive in length and heat but not a lot of light. I find it interesting if not revealing hat you use the word “heresy” The Collins dictionary has this to say:
"1. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action that most people think is wrong, because it disagrees with beliefs that are generally accepted.
It might be considered heresy to suggest such a notion.
Synonyms: unorthodoxy, apostasy, dissidence, impiety
2. variable noun
Heresy is a belief or action which seriously disagrees with the principles of a particular religion.
He said it was a heresy to suggest that women should not conduct services."
The word is usually used in a religious context, and it has become increasingly clear that Brexit is quickly becoming a form of religion in terms of thought processes. The main problem with religions – all of them – is that the deity can do no wrong. If something good happens “Praise Be to God” –If something bad happens it’s always somebody else’s fault – the Devils work, the evils of Mankind – whatever. It’s never God’s fault, is it?
With Brexit, those who oppose it are called remainers, remoaners, remainiacs, traitors, unpatriotic, enemies of the people and now, with your post, we have “heretics” I wonder if the population would endorse the reintroduction of burning at the stake for those that voted remain – once the party machine has rounded us all up. It’s not all that far from where we are already – death threats and one MP murdered by a Brexit nutter.
It makes me think – what about you?
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 28th December 19:49
It's possibly the determined attempts to pervert the recorded (Hansard) events concerning votes to suit political allegiances, irrespective of the real world. Strange, the irresistible temptation to portray recent historical fact in dubious partisan terms. Especially from the outside looking in and with no informed knowledge!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff