Discussion
Cobnapint said:
Helicopter123 said:
Don't be a clown, I'm showing you that JRM is popular amongst conservative voters, but not with the wider electorate.
The wider electorate? You mean Labour and LD voters as indicated on your chart, yes? Which takes me back to my original point about turkeys and christmas.psi310398 said:
So whatever ClaphamGT3 may feel about JRM, fairness requires me to suggest that you'd rule out most of the Tory backbenchers as having many of the character flaws mentioned, and some not mentioned.
TBH I was being a bit mischievous when I quoted Clapham's post. I agree many have similar flaws. I don't know JRM at all, but you tend to find those with ability rise fairly quickly, whereas JRM has remained a backbencher. So that probably gives some indication of how his colleagues view his underlying ability. As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is s
t, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance. EddieSteadyGo said:
TBH I was being a bit mischievous when I quoted Clapham's post. I agree many have similar flaws. I don't know JRM at all, but you tend to find those with ability rise fairly quickly, whereas JRM has remained a backbencher. So that probably gives some indication of how his colleagues view his underlying ability.
As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is st, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance.
As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is s
t, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance. 
Add to your last paragraph that, since the advent of the EU, they are less and less powerful or influential and more merely rubber stamps.
One of the things a proper Brexit would achieve would be giving our MPs something purposeful and useful to do as they would actually need to consider and legislate their own laws.
techguyone said:
I like the Aussies for straight no nonsense thinking, perhaps our lot would do well to consider this little piece.
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----
It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----
It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
M3333 said:
techguyone said:
I like the Aussies for straight no nonsense thinking, perhaps our lot would do well to consider this little piece.
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----
It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----
It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
EddieSteadyGo said:
As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is st, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance.
It's definitely a profession for the egotistical, a trait which becomes more dominant the higher up you go. Trump occupies arguably the highest political office on the planet and he's a clinical psychopath. This gives the lie to the idea that high office = high ability; the establishment 'great and good' being, well, neither in reality. Humbug circus performers pretending to be great wizards...t, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance. But, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'God is dead, and we killed him, how shall we wash our hands of the blood, such is the magnitude of the act does this not make us too gods?' we should be careful what we wish for and be ready for the next version of politic, one that's playing out now on Brietbart, Youtube and Fox to an audience that has lost nuance while reason sleeps. To now gain power a more simplistic and robust message needs to be sent to outshout the shouters, this just leads to more polarisation and ultimately internal conflict, which always tends to end badly for someone. Add to this the particularly insidious and unbidden postmodernist social theory pervading everywhere you care to look, itself a snake that will eat it's own tail, which causes magnification of an already divided opinion set for no good end and I feel we are heading for calamity; my only hope is the common sense of the herd, so we're probably f
ked 
saaby93 said:
Has Andrew Marr gone outside the box with this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46253745...
The last bit of the interview just highlights how the narrative is that without the EU, UK worker rights would be lost.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46253745...
Sorry, but thats b
ks. If the UK politicians water down worker rights, we can kick them out of office.As EU members we have seen far more real value rights disappear, with the glut of workers coming in freely, the bargaining power of the worker has been destroyed, which has led to zero hours contracts and the gig economy making up more and more of the jobs available.
We have seen some of this reversing post the vote to leave, with wage rises starting to feed through as labour becomes more scarce.
Most if not all of Labour will vote it down ,all of the SNP will vote it down, the lonely hearts club libs will vote it down, the DUP and the rest of N.I MP's will vote it down and anything up to 100 Tory MP's will vote it down. What sort of delusion is she working under to believe she alone can persuade all of these people probably almost 400 of them to vote this through because she is right and they are wrong.
She is for some reason stalling for time.
She is for some reason stalling for time.
psi310398 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
<snip>
As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is st, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance.
As an aside, there is something slightly strange about many MPs that's quite hard to put your finger on. Perhaps it is because the pay is s
t, the level of public scrutiny is beyond invasive, the cynicism from the general public is palpable, but we still give the position a level of respect within our society. So it tends to attract the more egotistical characters who enjoy a higher than normal level of self importance. Add to your last paragraph that, since the advent of the EU, they are less and less powerful or influential and more merely rubber stamps.
One of the things a proper Brexit would achieve would be giving our MPs something purposeful and useful to do as they would actually need to consider and legislate their own laws.
I think it's because so much decision making has been moved to the upper Union they've really had nothing to do but bicker with each other
Personally I think it will take a few years to up skill the HOC with some improved Members
When MP's like Vaz are seen as "Teflon" you know it's rotten in there.......
andy_s said:
It's definitely a profession for the egotistical, a trait which becomes more dominant the higher up you go. Trump occupies arguably the highest political office on the planet and he's a clinical psychopath. This gives the lie to the idea that high office = high ability; the establishment 'great and good' being, well, neither in reality. Humbug circus performers pretending to be great wizards...
But, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'God is dead, and we killed him, how shall we wash our hands of the blood, such is the magnitude of the act does this not make us too gods?' we should be careful what we wish for and be ready for the next version of politic, one that's playing out now on Brietbart, Youtube and Fox to an audience that has lost nuance while reason sleeps. To now gain power a more simplistic and robust message needs to be sent to outshout the shouters, this just leads to more polarisation and ultimately internal conflict, which always tends to end badly for someone. Add to this the particularly insidious and unbidden postmodernist social theory pervading everywhere you care to look, itself a snake that will eat it's own tail, which causes magnification of an already divided opinion set for no good end and I feel we are heading for calamity; my only hope is the common sense of the herd, so we're probably fked
Some deep thinking there Andy. Always keep meaning to read some of Nietzsche's work - suspect there is lots for me to learn there. But, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'God is dead, and we killed him, how shall we wash our hands of the blood, such is the magnitude of the act does this not make us too gods?' we should be careful what we wish for and be ready for the next version of politic, one that's playing out now on Brietbart, Youtube and Fox to an audience that has lost nuance while reason sleeps. To now gain power a more simplistic and robust message needs to be sent to outshout the shouters, this just leads to more polarisation and ultimately internal conflict, which always tends to end badly for someone. Add to this the particularly insidious and unbidden postmodernist social theory pervading everywhere you care to look, itself a snake that will eat it's own tail, which causes magnification of an already divided opinion set for no good end and I feel we are heading for calamity; my only hope is the common sense of the herd, so we're probably f
ked I understand what you mean about some of the risks to our political system. It's ironic that with the internet, we have the power of a 1000 years of knowledge at our fingertips, and yet we can be inclined to insulate ourselves in comfortable echo chambers where our own beliefs are reinforced and validated rather than challenged or expanded.
B'stard Child said:
PM and many others on here would probably agree we really have a huge amount of utter dross in politics now.
I think it's because so much decision making has been moved to the upper Union they've really had nothing to do but bicker with each other
Personally I think it will take a few years to up skill the HOC with some improved Members
When MP's like Vaz are seen as "Teflon" you know it's rotten in there.......
I think it's more likely that it's nothing to do with the EU and simply because most people have zero interest in politics.I think it's because so much decision making has been moved to the upper Union they've really had nothing to do but bicker with each other
Personally I think it will take a few years to up skill the HOC with some improved Members
When MP's like Vaz are seen as "Teflon" you know it's rotten in there.......
You see it on the news all the time - if you honestly blame the EU for it I think you'd be surprised and appalled if you randomly asked 100 people to name the chancellor or shadow chancellor.
The likes of Vaz are, I suspect, a product of decades where you end up with areas where literally a donkey wearing the right colours could win the seat.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:B'stard Child said:
PM and many others on here would probably agree we really have a huge amount of utter dross in politics now.
I think it's because so much decision making has been moved to the upper Union they've really had nothing to do but bicker with each other
Personally I think it will take a few years to up skill the HOC with some improved Members
When MP's like Vaz are seen as "Teflon" you know it's rotten in there.......
I think it's more likely that it's nothing to do with the EU and simply because most people have zero interest in politics.I think it's because so much decision making has been moved to the upper Union they've really had nothing to do but bicker with each other
Personally I think it will take a few years to up skill the HOC with some improved Members
When MP's like Vaz are seen as "Teflon" you know it's rotten in there.......
You see it on the news all the time - if you honestly blame the EU for it I think you'd be surprised and appalled if you randomly asked 100 people to name the chancellor or shadow chancellor.
The likes of Vaz are, I suspect, a product of decades where you end up with areas where literally a donkey wearing the right colours could win the seat.
Vaz might get voted in but you suggesting that once voted in he can't be removed - that would be EU commissioners surely.
B'stard Child said:
I didn't blame the EU - If I was to blame anyone it would be the ones (our previous governments) that took us in knowing what would be a consequence.
Vaz might get voted in but you suggesting that once voted in he can't be removed - that would be EU commissioners surely.
Apologies, I thought "upper Union" was referring to the EU, wasn't sure what else it could be?Vaz might get voted in but you suggesting that once voted in he can't be removed - that would be EU commissioners surely.
And Vaz can be removed every 5 years. He's been an MP since 1987 so I make that around 6 opportunities minimum probably more and none taken.
Personally I think he's a disgrace but people clearly keep on voting for him.
Both in relation to our MPs and to TM's 'deal', it is worth recalling Tony Benn consistently holding that those in positions of economic, social and political power should always be asked five questions:
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
He said “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.” It's not often you will find me citing Tony Benn with approval but he had this issue bang on.
Apply that last test to the HoC and we are fine. Apply it to the 'deal', and...?
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
He said “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.” It's not often you will find me citing Tony Benn with approval but he had this issue bang on.
Apply that last test to the HoC and we are fine. Apply it to the 'deal', and...?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:B'stard Child said:
I didn't blame the EU - If I was to blame anyone it would be the ones (our previous governments) that took us in knowing what would be a consequence.
Vaz might get voted in but you suggesting that once voted in he can't be removed - that would be EU commissioners surely.
Apologies, I thought "upper Union" was referring to the EU, wasn't sure what else it could be?Vaz might get voted in but you suggesting that once voted in he can't be removed - that would be EU commissioners surely.
And Vaz can be removed every 5 years. He's been an MP since 1987 so I make that around 6 opportunities minimum probably more and none taken.
Personally I think he's a disgrace but people clearly keep on voting for him.
So the only was to get an odious slimeball like Vaz out is for him to lose at election time - slightly worrying that is surely...... The issue for me is he either knows where all the bodies are buried or MP's believe that action against him would be the thin end of the wedge and any of them could be next so better together - that's a bigger worry if I am honest
johnxjsc1985 said:
Most if not all of Labour will vote it down ,all of the SNP will vote it down, the lonely hearts club libs will vote it down, the DUP and the rest of N.I MP's will vote it down and anything up to 100 Tory MP's will vote it down. What sort of delusion is she working under to believe she alone can persuade all of these people probably almost 400 of them to vote this through because she is right and they are wrong.
She is for some reason stalling for time.
Very true. I keep telling myself don't worry, she knows what she's doing, it's all part of a bigger masterplan. But after every successive interview that gets us closer to zero hour - my hopes are dashed.She is for some reason stalling for time.
Raab said at lunchtime that just 2 or 3 things need altering on the WA to make it more palatable. But Merkel is saying eff off, it's all done, no more negotiations on that one, which rather goes against the widely held agreement that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It also indicates that the EU know they've sold us a pup.
psi310398 said:
Both in relation to our MPs and to TM's 'deal', it is worth recalling Tony Benn consistently holding that those in positions of economic, social and political power should always be asked five questions:
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
He said “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.” It's not often you will find me citing Tony Benn with approval but he had this issue bang on.
Apply that last test to the HoC and we are fine. Apply it to the 'deal', and...?
Apply it to the EU as well “What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
He said “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.” It's not often you will find me citing Tony Benn with approval but he had this issue bang on.
Apply that last test to the HoC and we are fine. Apply it to the 'deal', and...?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff