New prime minister

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

New prime minister

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 57 of 61 < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

CrazyBadger Ware 26 Oct 22 11.02am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle In my opinion it's not so much the MPs themselves, who necessarily are a inhomogeneous group anyway, as the system we have. The various conventions and practices which have developed over time and which deserve to be scrutinised and then revised to ensure they remain fit for purpose. The reason we use a representative democracy is to have people with the time and access to information and advice to study issues in depth and come to informed conclusions on our behalf. When you put the decisions directly in the hands of the people then they become subject to all the influences they face before making any decision. They include advertising and marketing, the MSM, some of which takes up positions based on the personal attitudes of owners and, these days, social media, which is largely unregulated and has been used by malign foreign actors to sow dissatisfaction and propaganda. The result of which is that we are likely to get untrustworthy results, especially in any that are close run. The MPs are better placed to ignore the noise and concentrate on the substance. So do we want our country run by "influencers", or those we choose to represent us? Here here. Been saying this since Brexit began. The 'people' should never have been allowed to make such a decision. That's what we vote these imbeciles in for - to make informed decisions best for the whole country, not just from my viewpoint from inside the Ice Cream factory. Saying that, I'm not against the referendum, but at least weight it so that the MPs/Gvmnt vote has more influence than the public vote. I would have like to have seen (and would like to see in all future referendums) at least a 10% weighting towards the opinion of the Government. that Would mean that If the goverment were Remain, then the 'Brexit' vote would need to have surpassed 60% for it to have been successful. "It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"
Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger

Ware 26 Oct 22 11.02am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

In my opinion it's not so much the MPs themselves, who necessarily are a inhomogeneous group anyway, as the system we have. The various conventions and practices which have developed over time and which deserve to be scrutinised and then revised to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

The reason we use a representative democracy is to have people with the time and access to information and advice to study issues in depth and come to informed conclusions on our behalf.

When you put the decisions directly in the hands of the people then they become subject to all the influences they face before making any decision. They include advertising and marketing, the MSM, some of which takes up positions based on the personal attitudes of owners and, these days, social media, which is largely unregulated and has been used by malign foreign actors to sow dissatisfaction and propaganda.

The result of which is that we are likely to get untrustworthy results, especially in any that are close run.

The MPs are better placed to ignore the noise and concentrate on the substance.

So do we want our country run by "influencers", or those we choose to represent us?

Here here. Been saying this since Brexit began. The 'people' should never have been allowed to make such a decision. That's what we vote these imbeciles in for - to make informed decisions best for the whole country, not just from my viewpoint from inside the Ice Cream factory.

Saying that, I'm not against the referendum, but at least weight it so that the MPs/Gvmnt vote has more influence than the public vote. I would have like to have seen (and would like to see in all future referendums) at least a 10% weighting towards the opinion of the Government. that Would mean that If the goverment were Remain, then the 'Brexit' vote would need to have surpassed 60% for it to have been successful.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 11.14am
Originally posted by HKOwen There are quite a few remoaners that will spout " foreign interference " nonsense. They try to legitimise their nonsense by throwing in some spurious " security sources " rubbish. Let them spout I say, just makes them look more ridiculous It's nonsense? Perhaps you might like to read this. The Tories kicked the accusations into the long grass to avoid too much scrutiny and what the implications of what would be revealed. Those who think this isn't happening are fooling themselves. Or, more likely, have themselves been fooled:- [Link] For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 11.14am

Originally posted by HKOwen

There are quite a few remoaners that will spout " foreign interference " nonsense. They try to legitimise their nonsense by throwing in some spurious " security sources " rubbish.

Let them spout I say, just makes them look more ridiculous

It's nonsense? Perhaps you might like to read this. The Tories kicked the accusations into the long grass to avoid too much scrutiny and what the implications of what would be revealed. Those who think this isn't happening are fooling themselves. Or, more likely, have themselves been fooled:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 11.28am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No. They are more aware of the dangers. They have access to expert advice, are trained on how to recognise the genuine from the fake, have the civil service in support and each other ready to pounce on any transgressions. They are also committed to their own careers and are susceptible to bribery and blackmail. The intelligence services are even more closely scrutinised but they're not immune to outside influences.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 11.28am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No.

They are more aware of the dangers. They have access to expert advice, are trained on how to recognise the genuine from the fake, have the civil service in support and each other ready to pounce on any transgressions.

They are also committed to their own careers and are susceptible to bribery and blackmail. The intelligence services are even more closely scrutinised but they're not immune to outside influences.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 26 Oct 22 12.44pm
'Grassroot Tories ‘feel used’ by Sunak ‘coronation’ and don’t believe new PM has integrity'. Sunak has done a grubby deal over Home Secretary appointment - Starmer. And its only day one.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 26 Oct 22 12.44pm

'Grassroot Tories ‘feel used’ by Sunak ‘coronation’ and don’t believe new PM has integrity'.

Sunak has done a grubby deal over Home Secretary appointment - Starmer.

And its only day one.

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 26 Oct 22 12.47pm
Originally posted by CrazyBadger Here here. Been saying this since Brexit began. The 'people' should never have been allowed to make such a decision. That's what we vote these imbeciles in for - to make informed decisions best for the whole country, not just from my viewpoint from inside the Ice Cream factory. Saying that, I'm not against the referendum, but at least weight it so that the MPs/Gvmnt vote has more influence than the public vote. I would have like to have seen (and would like to see in all future referendums) at least a 10% weighting towards the opinion of the Government. that Would mean that If the goverment were Remain, then the 'Brexit' vote would need to have surpassed 60% for it to have been successful. I don't trust a single one of them and think that the vast majority are not capable of doing anything more than doing what suits them best.
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

26 Oct 22 12.47pm

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

I don't trust a single one of them and think that the vast majority are not capable of doing anything more than doing what suits them best.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 1.09pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle They are also committed to their own careers and are susceptible to bribery and blackmail. The intelligence services are even more closely scrutinised but they're not immune to outside influences. True, to a degree, but then every group of people are. That's really not the issue. What matters is what produces a reliable judgement of what's in our best interests. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 1.09pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

They are also committed to their own careers and are susceptible to bribery and blackmail. The intelligence services are even more closely scrutinised but they're not immune to outside influences.

True, to a degree, but then every group of people are. That's really not the issue. What matters is what produces a reliable judgement of what's in our best interests.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 1.21pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle True, to a degree, but then every group of people are. That's really not the issue. What matters is what produces a reliable judgement of what's in our best interests. Every group? It's s pretty hard to bribe or blackmail the majority of the population whereas a few politicians aren't such a challenge and then won't be acting in any interests other than their own.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 1.21pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

True, to a degree, but then every group of people are. That's really not the issue. What matters is what produces a reliable judgement of what's in our best interests.

Every group? It's s pretty hard to bribe or blackmail the majority of the population whereas a few politicians aren't such a challenge and then won't be acting in any interests other than their own.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 1.34pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 'Grassroot Tories ‘feel used’ by Sunak ‘coronation’ and don’t believe new PM has integrity'. Sunak has done a grubby deal over Home Secretary appointment - Starmer. And its only day one. That the Tories managed to avoid consulting their members has helped restore a modicum of integrity, in my own opinion. That those members are out of touch is just par for their course. Given normal circumstances I wouldn't appoint Braverman to clean the toilets in the H o C. I think she is a fully paid up member of the nasty party, without any evidence of compassion. However, others disagree and if in assessing priorities it was a choice of keeping the membership out of the loop, and reappointing Braverman, or letting them in by keeping her out, then the former wins every time. She can always be given clear instructions, carefully monitored and dropped if she steps out of line. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 1.34pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

'Grassroot Tories ‘feel used’ by Sunak ‘coronation’ and don’t believe new PM has integrity'.

Sunak has done a grubby deal over Home Secretary appointment - Starmer.

And its only day one.

That the Tories managed to avoid consulting their members has helped restore a modicum of integrity, in my own opinion. That those members are out of touch is just par for their course.

Given normal circumstances I wouldn't appoint Braverman to clean the toilets in the H o C. I think she is a fully paid up member of the nasty party, without any evidence of compassion.

However, others disagree and if in assessing priorities it was a choice of keeping the membership out of the loop, and reappointing Braverman, or letting them in by keeping her out, then the former wins every time. She can always be given clear instructions, carefully monitored and dropped if she steps out of line.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 26 Oct 22 1.38pm
I can't comment on what Braverman is like but he has made a mistake appointing her in my opinion even though her "error" was almost certainly done on purpose to get out of the mess that they were in under Truss. If he had ignored her, then no doubt that someone would have found something about it to beat him with! As always in politics - damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

26 Oct 22 1.38pm

I can't comment on what Braverman is like but he has made a mistake appointing her in my opinion even though her "error" was almost certainly done on purpose to get out of the mess that they were in under Truss.
If he had ignored her, then no doubt that someone would have found something about it to beat him with!
As always in politics - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 1.38pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That the Tories managed to avoid consulting their members has helped restore a modicum of integrity, in my own opinion. That those members are out of touch is just par for their course. Given normal circumstances I wouldn't appoint Braverman to clean the toilets in the H o C. I think she is a fully paid up member of the nasty party, without any evidence of compassion. However, others disagree and if in assessing priorities it was a choice of keeping the membership out of the loop, and reappointing Braverman, or letting them in by keeping her out, then the former wins every time. She can always be given clear instructions, carefully monitored and dropped if she steps out of line. Steps out of line? Even if she's following her own conscience? Isn't that what you want them to do?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 1.38pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That the Tories managed to avoid consulting their members has helped restore a modicum of integrity, in my own opinion. That those members are out of touch is just par for their course.

Given normal circumstances I wouldn't appoint Braverman to clean the toilets in the H o C. I think she is a fully paid up member of the nasty party, without any evidence of compassion.

Steps out of line? Even if she's following her own conscience? Isn't that what you want them to do?

Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger Ware 26 Oct 22 1.39pm
Originally posted by The Dolphin I don't trust a single one of them and think that the vast majority are not capable of doing anything more than doing what suits them best. That may be so, but that's the system we have in place for this country. We pay them to make these decisions, so they should make them. "It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"
Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger

Ware 26 Oct 22 1.39pm

Originally posted by The Dolphin

I don't trust a single one of them and think that the vast majority are not capable of doing anything more than doing what suits them best.

That may be so, but that's the system we have in place for this country.

We pay them to make these decisions, so they should make them.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 26 Oct 22 1.44pm
Originally posted by CrazyBadger That may be so, but that's the system we have in place for this country. We pay them to make these decisions, so they should make them. Errrr...when did I sign up to that? It's all very well saying that this is the system in place, it's another thing entirely to say that it comes with public approval. We are a trillion in debt, that's what comes of leaving these guys to make their own decisions. Would you be so accepting of that if that was the state of your personal bank account? 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

26 Oct 22 1.44pm

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

That may be so, but that's the system we have in place for this country.

We pay them to make these decisions, so they should make them.

Errrr...when did I sign up to that?

It's all very well saying that this is the system in place, it's another thing entirely to say that it comes with public approval.

We are a trillion in debt, that's what comes of leaving these guys to make their own decisions. Would you be so accepting of that if that was the state of your personal bank account?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 57 of 61 < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

New prime minister

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors