Rorschach
Sonny Walters
It will feel like it if we lose after being 3 up with 5mins left. I'm getting anxious just thinking about it now.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
What's hilarious about this - and it typifies the Leave problem - is it is moaning about what we don't want without outlining what we do.
If you don't want something, you should have an idea of what you want in its place. If you can't outline what that is, its not a conspiracy, people "not listening", or the establishment letting anyone down, it is that there isn't a good option on the table that anyone has come up with. In which case, you have to ask, what is it you are voting for, what are you chasing when you say I want Brexit?
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
As memory serves "a deal" (a seriously vague term Im sure you will agree) was the claim of the leave campaign. Though I think you are wrong in soft brexit being the thrust of anything.
Norway, Canada etc were never preferred. It was always "Norway+" and "Canada+" - IE a recognition that those deals as standard arent good enough and more would be required for them to be palatable/preferrable.
A FTA was a regular claim, which is something else entirely.
So no, I dont agree and think you are wrong in that assertion. Soft brexit was never the thrust of anything. At least, not until after the referendum when the powers that be realised they would have to work for a living if there was anything other than BINO.
I cant argue with that at all. Possibly the most perfect sentence Ive read RE Brexit since the referendum.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Indeed I do agree it was vague. The whole referrendum was clouded in a fog of vagueness (is that a word?) That is my point in some ways. Leave were not campaigning for a no deal outcome - they were campaigning for a deal of some description. The options on offer, Norway, Norway+, etc came to the fore after the referendum to my recollection. Whether you call it soft brexit or a trade agreement, at referendum time no one was pushing for no deal and WTO defaults. The goal posts have moved in response to the failed negotations in the UK parliament and with Europe.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Problem is that humans can now almost control the one mass extinction that the planet really needs, ours.
A culmination of the end of major wars, disease outbreaks, artificially prolonged life and uncontrolled breeding means that we as a species are destroying the planet and everything on it.
Unless there's a reboot we'll be lucky to make 2150.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
We were looking for a trading relationship and the ability to decide our own governance (borders etc).
Which, IMHO, would mean no soft brexit of any description.
WTO was mooted, though in a minor way, everything else was as a deal/trade agreement - NOT soft brexit.
Though you are right to say vagueness (its absolutely a word now) and ambiguity - and of course mixed messaging - saw to it there was never anything particularly definitive.
Post referendum the EU played an absolute blinder in boxing us into the worst deal possible. Made easy for them by some of the worst leadership ever seen on our side. Which suddenly meant soft brexit was more palatable than the alternatives to many. Particularly the remain population who would see it as a victory subverting the result (as would be their preference).
We should have been stronger in our resolve (and belief, actually) when going into negotiations. We should not have allowed ourselves to be bullied.
But THAT is where the idea of soft brexit came through as a more popular choice, not during the referendum campaign beforehand.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Not sure I agree with all that but I think most of it would come down to sematics and vernacular and I don't have time to pick through it. I have to save the planet (that or thumb a lift off this rock on a passing vogon ship)
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Thank you for saying that, as i have said before they are racists everywhere and they always have been. My problem is that they are those who see racists behind every corner when anyone has a different position/opinion to them.
Everyone has a right to make their own decision and not be accused of being racist, some of these folks who fail to understand why some vote different to them are just as closed minded as those who are racist ( and as i said already there are racists everywhere.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
He is talking out of his arse as usual, do not bite.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I'd probably add a few more villans to your list including unfettered capitalism, but it will be our love of burning brick that will likely kill us. We need to halt this asap and start sucking carbon back out of the air by whatever method. We have the means but just not the political will to change course, and it needs to be top down at this stage. I do see one ray of light with the green wave washing over politics. Hopeful it is the start of something big.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Green politics is a con IMHO.
I've yet to see one green party stand up say that the biggest fundamental problem is over and rising population.
Their answer to everything is tax and ban but let's not upset too many people, except the middle class of course who have to carry the can and the blame.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I'm sorry you feel like that. It is certainly not the case where I'm from. Either way it's all we have.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Tony Blair's former spin doctor says he has been expelled from the Labour Party after voting for the Liberal Democrats in the European elections.
Alastair Campbell, a lead campaigner for another Brexit referendum, said he was "sad and disappointed".
He said he voted Lib Dem "to try to persuade Labour to do the right thing", but "always will be Labour" and appeal.
Shadow minister Dawn Butler said members who admitted voting for another party were "automatically excluded".
"It's just part of the rule book. Everyone knows that," she said.
Mr Campbell revealed he had voted Lib Dem during the BBC's election night broadcast on Sunday.
Following his expulsion, in a series of tweets, he said there was "plenty of precedent of members voting for other parties/causes" and that some were now senior staff.
He claimed the decision also "contrasts with our era" when Mr Blair was "pressed" to withdraw the Labour whip from Jeremy Corbyn for voting against the party - but the then PM said no.
He also added that it was "hard not to point out difference in the way anti-Semitism cases have been handled" on the day the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into allegation in the party.
Labour MPs have taken to Twitter to criticise the move.
Jess Phillips, who represents Birmingham Yardley, tweeted that Mr Campbell was "expelled quicker than a man who threatened to kill me [and] quicker than a man in my [local party] who denied the Holocaust", adding: "Both are only still suspended."
Barking MP and campaigner against anti-Semitism Margaret Hodge said the party's "priorities are all wrong",
And former Lord Chancellor in Mr Blair's government, Lord Charles Falconer, said Mr Campbell was "Labour through and through", adding: "Voting [Lib Dem] once in a lifetime on one issue should not lead to expulsion."
But Labour activist and commentator Owen Jones questioned why there was "controversy" over his expulsion, adding: "The rule is, if you say you're voting for another party, you auto exclude yourself.
"Those arguing this rule shouldn't apply to Alastair Campbell do so because they agree with him and for no other reason."
Last week, veteran Conservative and pro-European Lord Heseltine admitted he planned to vote Lib Dem in the election. The party responded by effectively expelling him.
*Didnt see that about Heseltine either, though Im not sure expelling is exactly what theyve done:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...spends-michael-heseltine-for-backing-lib-dems
“As a result, the chief whip in the House of Lords has informed Lord Heseltine that he will have the Conservative whip suspended. This will be reviewed if he is willing to support Conservative candidates at future elections.”
In either case Im not sure what to make of this. Never having been a party member its not something that Ive thought about.
On one hand I understand rules are rules and these guys knew the consequences.
On the other I find it odd that membership binds your voting, it seems wrong to me. As in both these cases there were valid reasons for the people to vote as they did, and they should be able to do so freely. Ideally, to my mind, a party works as such that members would WANT to support it, not be forced to.
Alastair Campbell, a lead campaigner for another Brexit referendum, said he was "sad and disappointed".
He said he voted Lib Dem "to try to persuade Labour to do the right thing", but "always will be Labour" and appeal.
Shadow minister Dawn Butler said members who admitted voting for another party were "automatically excluded".
"It's just part of the rule book. Everyone knows that," she said.
Mr Campbell revealed he had voted Lib Dem during the BBC's election night broadcast on Sunday.
Following his expulsion, in a series of tweets, he said there was "plenty of precedent of members voting for other parties/causes" and that some were now senior staff.
He claimed the decision also "contrasts with our era" when Mr Blair was "pressed" to withdraw the Labour whip from Jeremy Corbyn for voting against the party - but the then PM said no.
He also added that it was "hard not to point out difference in the way anti-Semitism cases have been handled" on the day the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into allegation in the party.
Labour MPs have taken to Twitter to criticise the move.
Jess Phillips, who represents Birmingham Yardley, tweeted that Mr Campbell was "expelled quicker than a man who threatened to kill me [and] quicker than a man in my [local party] who denied the Holocaust", adding: "Both are only still suspended."
Barking MP and campaigner against anti-Semitism Margaret Hodge said the party's "priorities are all wrong",
And former Lord Chancellor in Mr Blair's government, Lord Charles Falconer, said Mr Campbell was "Labour through and through", adding: "Voting [Lib Dem] once in a lifetime on one issue should not lead to expulsion."
But Labour activist and commentator Owen Jones questioned why there was "controversy" over his expulsion, adding: "The rule is, if you say you're voting for another party, you auto exclude yourself.
"Those arguing this rule shouldn't apply to Alastair Campbell do so because they agree with him and for no other reason."
Last week, veteran Conservative and pro-European Lord Heseltine admitted he planned to vote Lib Dem in the election. The party responded by effectively expelling him.
*Didnt see that about Heseltine either, though Im not sure expelling is exactly what theyve done:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...spends-michael-heseltine-for-backing-lib-dems
“As a result, the chief whip in the House of Lords has informed Lord Heseltine that he will have the Conservative whip suspended. This will be reviewed if he is willing to support Conservative candidates at future elections.”
In either case Im not sure what to make of this. Never having been a party member its not something that Ive thought about.
On one hand I understand rules are rules and these guys knew the consequences.
On the other I find it odd that membership binds your voting, it seems wrong to me. As in both these cases there were valid reasons for the people to vote as they did, and they should be able to do so freely. Ideally, to my mind, a party works as such that members would WANT to support it, not be forced to.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
And yet it was too 'leavey' for the Labour Party, apparently.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
Yes, Leave were explicitly campaigning for a deal.
They said they would agree the terms before starting the legal process to leave.
There’s no mandate for no deal.
And you’re right: the Overton window shifted hugely.
At first it was:
Soft brexit = stay in SM and CU
Hard brexit = Leave those and get FTA
No deal = not even mentioned / considered
Now it’s:
Leave EU but stay in SM and CU = not actual Brexit (somehow??)
Leave SM and CU and get FTA = soft Brexit
No deal = “what we all voted for”
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
As long as we make it to Sunday....all is good.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That's the page I'm on and it is sort of there in the Green movement (but the leaders are too scared/weak to make the case). That's what I mean when I talk about degrowth and using the control Brexit gives us over the corporates to push for localism, zero carbon and an end to economic migration etc.
Recycling and being anti-car etc is all complete tokenism. The real solutions are a combination of technological solutions with moving to a post-capitalist/post-consumerist economy.
In terms of population, the emancipation of women actually controls population growth (see what is happening in Japan where there is no immigration and what happened in Britain through the late 90s till 2004). The effort all needs to go on secularising and improving the health and education levels in the third world.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Over populations which leads on to the biggest threat to the world which is food security. Green party do nothing to address that.
Scotland heading into another independence referendum.
Scotland heading into another independence referendum.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Its all natural resources. Currently our consumption level needs 1.5 earths to support it. If everyone gets to Western levels of lifestyle, we'd need 7 earths