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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 60 of 61 < 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 27 Oct 22 8.35am
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio The puppetmasters 1 The British Public 0 The British Public might occasionally win a battle but they will never win the war. We need a modern electoral system not this prehistoric 'first party past the post' $hit. Denial is not just a river in Egypt
Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 27 Oct 22 8.35am

Send a Private Message to Henry of Peckham

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

The puppetmasters 1

The British Public 0

The British Public might occasionally win a battle but they will never win the war. We need a modern electoral system not this prehistoric 'first party past the post' $hit.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Oct 22 8.48am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 As with all conspiracy theories, "those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way" will believe what they want to believe. Just like you have here. The conclusion of the report from HMG, which I already posted, was that there was no influence from outside forces. It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed". That's simply untrue. What I posted was a "Debate pack", which includes this:- "The Prime Minister was later asked in the House of Commons whether those comments could also cover Russian actions in relation to UK elections and the referendum. The usual response is that: “To date, the Government has not seen evidence of successful interference in UK elections.” What you posted was a link to a Financial Times article, which I cannot access, but assume is based on the above. The "Debate pack" contains a lot more evidence, much of it circumstantial in nature, which gives rise to concerns that the referendum result was unreliable. The government decided to keep their eyes shut. A full investigation was kicked into the long grass by a government nervous of the political implications of holding one. They promised to hold one in due time, but never have, and it's not now discussed. Brexit got "done", whether compromised, or not. So were we. 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 27 Oct 22 8.48am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

As with all conspiracy theories, "those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way" will believe what they want to believe. Just like you have here. The conclusion of the report from HMG, which I already posted, was that there was no influence from outside forces.

It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed".

That's simply untrue. What I posted was a "Debate pack", which includes this:-

"The Prime Minister was later asked in the House of Commons whether those comments could also cover Russian actions in relation to UK elections and the referendum. The usual response is that: “To date, the Government has not seen evidence of successful interference in UK elections.”

What you posted was a link to a Financial Times article, which I cannot access, but assume is based on the above.

The "Debate pack" contains a lot more evidence, much of it circumstantial in nature, which gives rise to concerns that the referendum result was unreliable. The government decided to keep their eyes shut.

A full investigation was kicked into the long grass by a government nervous of the political implications of holding one. They promised to hold one in due time, but never have, and it's not now discussed. Brexit got "done", whether compromised, or not. So were we.

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 27 Oct 22 9.04am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The above is the dogma! It's not outdated at all. It is our long established, tried and tested, system. I have no problem with those who wish our MPs to become delegates rather than representatives, even if I disagree and think it to be impossible to find a way of ascertaining what the people as a whole think about every issue. However, if that is your opinion, then campaign for change and vote in a Parliament who agree with you. The debate would be interesting and expose the paucity of the arguments in favour of change. Bring it on and good luck. Until then what we have, is what we have now. MPs don't get elected on unachievable promises. No-one is ever in a position to really promise anything other than to do their utmost to deliver what they say they want to do. That people choose to think otherwise is obviously unfortunate, and is politically exploited, but doesn't change the facts. Manifestos offering guarantees, and making promises, must be seen in their context. Unforeseen events are bound to alter timetables. Big failures result in PMs changing, as we have seen. Manifestos have to be treated with as large a dose of salt, as Del Boy offering you a Rolex for a tenner. If you expect to ever have, whatever system we use, a situation in which everything announced during a campaign is rigorously adhered to throughout the 5 year term of a government, then you are in dreamland. It would not be wise either. We need to react to events. Just imagine if we had voted in a Truss government and had to carry out that plan, come what may. As I explained, every MP, backbencher or part of the government, makes conscientious decisions. Just not always in the same way. Expecting everything in a manifesto to happen isn't the same as accepting being lied to by politicians. The issue isn't MPs consulting the public on every decision but of them accepting the result of a referendum. This isn't an everyday occurrence but to offer a vote and then override the result is just the three card trick. If you don't agree with holding a referendum then lead a campaign to stop them.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

27 Oct 22 9.04am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The above is the dogma!

It's not outdated at all. It is our long established, tried and tested, system. I have no problem with those who wish our MPs to become delegates rather than representatives, even if I disagree and think it to be impossible to find a way of ascertaining what the people as a whole think about every issue.

However, if that is your opinion, then campaign for change and vote in a Parliament who agree with you. The debate would be interesting and expose the paucity of the arguments in favour of change. Bring it on and good luck.

Until then what we have, is what we have now.

MPs don't get elected on unachievable promises. No-one is ever in a position to really promise anything other than to do their utmost to deliver what they say they want to do. That people choose to think otherwise is obviously unfortunate, and is politically exploited, but doesn't change the facts. Manifestos offering guarantees, and making promises, must be seen in their context. Unforeseen events are bound to alter timetables. Big failures result in PMs changing, as we have seen. Manifestos have to be treated with as large a dose of salt, as Del Boy offering you a Rolex for a tenner.

If you expect to ever have, whatever system we use, a situation in which everything announced during a campaign is rigorously adhered to throughout the 5 year term of a government, then you are in dreamland. It would not be wise either. We need to react to events. Just imagine if we had voted in a Truss government and had to carry out that plan, come what may.

As I explained, every MP, backbencher or part of the government, makes conscientious decisions. Just not always in the same way.

Expecting everything in a manifesto to happen isn't the same as accepting being lied to by politicians.
The issue isn't MPs consulting the public on every decision but of them accepting the result of a referendum. This isn't an everyday occurrence but to offer a vote and then override the result is just the three card trick.
If you don't agree with holding a referendum then lead a campaign to stop them.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Oct 22 11.41am
[quote=Teddy Eagle;3754 789] Expecting everything in a manifesto to happen isn't the same as accepting being lied to by politicians. The issue isn't MPs consulting the public on every decision but of them accepting the result of a referendum. This isn't an everyday occurrence but to offer a vote and then override the result is just the three card trick. If you don't agree with holding a referendum then lead a campaign to sto p them. They did accept the result. You ought to be happy. I wasn’t because I thought so much had changed and been revealed that the original result was unreliable and that their duty was to step in and say so. Alongside that was the strong sense of Russian and Chinese interference. If you believe, as I do, that MPs must always vote with their conscience then my view is that they failed, as a group, to do so. I expect to see this become a live issue again as the current whispers about rejoining become a clamour. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (27 Oct 2022 11.45am) 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 27 Oct 22 11.41am

[quote=Teddy Eagle;3754 789]

They did accept the result. You ought to be happy. I wasn’t because I thought so much had changed and been revealed that the original result was unreliable and that their duty was to step in and say so. Alongside that was the strong sense of Russian and Chinese interference.

If you believe, as I do, that MPs must always vote with their conscience then my view is that they failed, as a group, to do so.

I expect to see this become a live issue again as the current whispers about rejoining become a clamour.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (27 Oct 2022 11.45am)

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 27 Oct 22 11.54am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle [quote=Teddy Eagle;3754 789] Expecting everything in a manifesto to happen isn't the same as accepting being lied to by politicians. The issue isn't MPs consulting the public on every decision but of them accepting the result of a referendum. This isn't an everyday occurrence but to offer a vote and then override the result is just the three card trick. If you don't agree with holding a referendum then lead a campaign to sto p them. They did accept the result. You ought to be happy. I wasn’t because I thought so much had changed and been revealed that the original result was unreliable and that their duty was to step in and say so. Alongside that was the strong sense of Russian and Chinese interference. If you believe, as I do, that MPs must always vote with their conscience then my view is that they failed, as a group, to do so. I expect to see this become a live issue again as the current whispers about rejoining become a clamour. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (27 Oct 2022 11.45am) Who's going to lead this rejoin charge? Starmer said this week that the Labour party aren't interested in going back in. Talk of outside interference looks like a conspiracy theory.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

27 Oct 22 11.54am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

[quote=Teddy Eagle;3754 789]

If you believe, as I do, that MPs must always vote with their conscience then my view is that they failed, as a group, to do so.

I expect to see this become a live issue again as the current whispers about rejoining become a clamour.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (27 Oct 2022 11.45am)

Who's going to lead this rejoin charge? Starmer said this week that the Labour party aren't interested in going back in.
Talk of outside interference looks like a conspiracy theory.

Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 27 Oct 22 3.44pm
I think Liz just had the edge on Cameron ... [Link] Edited by Henry of Peckham (27 Oct 2022 4.33pm) Denial is not just a river in Egypt
Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 27 Oct 22 3.44pm

I think Liz just had the edge on Cameron ...

[Link]

Edited by Henry of Peckham (27 Oct 2022 4.33pm)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Oct 22 10.48pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Who's going to lead this rejoin charge? Starmer said this week that the Labour party aren't interested in going back in. Talk of outside interference looks like a conspiracy theory. Time will tell who leads it, but the whispers are in all the parties, and elsewhere. Only when it becomes a clamour would a political leader want to lead it. Cue Johnson! His commitment to Brexit was tenuous at best and much more to do with political opportunity than conviction. So if he saw a personal opportunity.....? Mind you that would mean admitting he was wrong, so actually unlikely. Unless the security services trade in conspiracy theories, the allegations of foreign interference in the Brexit referendum, isn't one. 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 27 Oct 22 10.48pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Who's going to lead this rejoin charge? Starmer said this week that the Labour party aren't interested in going back in.
Talk of outside interference looks like a conspiracy theory.

Time will tell who leads it, but the whispers are in all the parties, and elsewhere. Only when it becomes a clamour would a political leader want to lead it. Cue Johnson! His commitment to Brexit was tenuous at best and much more to do with political opportunity than conviction. So if he saw a personal opportunity.....? Mind you that would mean admitting he was wrong, so actually unlikely.

Unless the security services trade in conspiracy theories, the allegations of foreign interference in the Brexit referendum, isn't one.

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 27 Oct 22 11.11pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Time will tell who leads it, but the whispers are in all the parties, and elsewhere. Only when it becomes a clamour would a political leader want to lead it. Cue Johnson! His commitment to Brexit was tenuous at best and much more to do with political opportunity than conviction. So if he saw a personal opportunity.....? Mind you that would mean admitting he was wrong, so actually unlikely. Unless the security services trade in conspiracy theories, the allegations of foreign interference in the Brexit referendum, isn't one. Let's see how many votes Gina Miller's party gathers before deciding if there is any clamour. The security services investigated allegations of interference - conspiracy theories are that any such interference was decisive. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

27 Oct 22 11.11pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Unless the security services trade in conspiracy theories, the allegations of foreign interference in the Brexit referendum, isn't one.

Let's see how many votes Gina Miller's party gathers before deciding if there is any clamour.
The security services investigated allegations of interference - conspiracy theories are that any such interference was decisive.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 28 Oct 22 12.48am
Originally posted by Henry of Peckham The British Public might occasionally win a battle but they will never win the war. We need a modern electoral system not this prehistoric 'first party past the post' $hit. Apparently Truss wanted a lectern made of wood from all four countries in the UK, what she got was some strange homage to jenga. Irony abounds Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 28 Oct 22 12.48am

Originally posted by Henry of Peckham

The British Public might occasionally win a battle but they will never win the war. We need a modern electoral system not this prehistoric 'first party past the post' $hit.

Apparently Truss wanted a lectern made of wood from all four countries in the UK, what she got was some strange homage to jenga.

Irony abounds

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 28 Oct 22 9.47am
Originally posted by HKOwen Apparently Truss wanted a lectern made of wood from all four countries in the UK, what she got was some strange homage to jenga. Irony abounds It's certainly different ... a bit like her Premiership. I hope it doesn’t end up as firewood although I don't mind if she's recycled into something useful! Edited by Henry of Peckham (28 Oct 2022 9.49am) Denial is not just a river in Egypt
Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 28 Oct 22 9.47am

Originally posted by HKOwen

Apparently Truss wanted a lectern made of wood from all four countries in the UK, what she got was some strange homage to jenga.

Irony abounds

It's certainly different ... a bit like her Premiership. I hope it doesn’t end up as firewood although I don't mind if she's recycled into something useful!

Edited by Henry of Peckham (28 Oct 2022 9.49am)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Oct 22 10.02am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Let's see how many votes Gina Miller's party gathers before deciding if there is any clamour. The security services investigated allegations of interference - conspiracy theories are that any such interference was decisive. [Link] It won't come from there, or in that way. Clamour is probably the wrong term. Realism and an acceptance that we need to improve our relationship is what seems more likely, in the short term. There will be some wanting of us to fully re-join tomorrow. Me included, if it was a practical proposition, but it probably isn't yet. So a renegotiation of our "deal" looks to be a sensible first step. 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 28 Oct 22 10.02am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

[Link]

It won't come from there, or in that way. Clamour is probably the wrong term. Realism and an acceptance that we need to improve our relationship is what seems more likely, in the short term.

There will be some wanting of us to fully re-join tomorrow. Me included, if it was a practical proposition, but it probably isn't yet. So a renegotiation of our "deal" looks to be a sensible first step.

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 28 Oct 22 12.36pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It won't come from there, or in that way. Clamour is probably the wrong term. Realism and an acceptance that we need to improve our relationship is what seems more likely, in the short term. There will be some wanting of us to fully re-join tomorrow. Me included, if it was a practical proposition, but it probably isn't yet. So a renegotiation of our "deal" looks to be a sensible first step. Doesn't seem likely to happen, a least for a few years, when neither party wants to take the lead. There is also the issue of adopting the Euro which will deter a lot of people.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

28 Oct 22 12.36pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It won't come from there, or in that way. Clamour is probably the wrong term. Realism and an acceptance that we need to improve our relationship is what seems more likely, in the short term.

Doesn't seem likely to happen, a least for a few years, when neither party wants to take the lead. There is also the issue of adopting the Euro which will deter a lot of people.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 60 of 61 < 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