I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
Didn't he lose a civil case regarding the (alleged) rape?
A very very different thing. For a damn good reason
You lose a civil case “on the balance of probabilities”. So he could be guilty, he might not be. The evidence might be, ooh, 52/48 in favour of his guilt? Who decides in that case?
For a criminal case, you have to be guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt”, and for a reason, as something like a rape conviction will put you in prison for a long long time and probably ruin your life
Also, this is ten fucking years ago. Even if he is guilty, is no one ever allowed to get over the past? What does Val McDildo want him to do, to atone?? Must everyone convicted (or NOT actually convicted) of any crime that annoys her be condemned for the rest of time?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
See my comment towards the end of the last thread. I think it's a deliberate dead cat and we should decline to even discuss it, because the whole idea is likely to be that we talk about that instead of Partygate.
Didn't see your comment Nick but I agreed with you re the deliberate dead cat theory for several reasons (some of our thoughts may overlap, some may not):
1. Starmer was Head of the DPP at the time. Whilst he doesn't look to have a direct link to the case, people will still question whether he could have done more and / or should have intervened as opposed to being hands-off - hurt if you did, hurt if you didn't;
2. If Gray finds that it's civil servants / Carrie who were responsible for the breach but not Johnson, and Starmer states Johnson needs to take responsibility for actions carried out under his roof, Johnson can pivot and say why didn't Starmer do the same when the CPS didn't prosecute Saville and he was its' head? There are obvious differences but most people won't get the nuances;
3. It encourages people / the press to look into other instances of Starmer's legal career / stint at DPP where arguably he does have more to worry about. Michael Ashcroft makes it very clear (as do the victims of Carl Beech) that, while Starmer was not DPP at the time, he very much instituted the policy of "believe every victim" which was at the root of Beech being believed and high-profile victims been subjected to investigation (Afzal also had a role in this, which means his defence of Starmer is not entirely without self-interest). He also defended a number of cases / characters that are unlikely to find much favour amongst more socially conservative voters.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
The Left, allied with Remoaners, and - ironically - Dom Cummings - has embarked on a dedicated campaign to destroy Boris Johnson
ie everyone, dipshit.
especially as Sean skips over the Brexit wing of the Tory party, who have clearly stopped being entertained by their pet clown.
What exactly is said about him that is "not true" ?
It's absurd to criticise Boris just because the Left, the Right, Dom Cummings, Plaid, Sir Keir Starmer, Aaron Bell, the Pope, the LibDems, the SNP, David Davis, Steve Baker and, ironically, Steve in accounts, have come together to form an "alliance" against him.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
Didn't he lose a civil case regarding the (alleged) rape?
Yes, and an appeal.
It's nearly as bad as trying to defend Owen Paterson.
The standards of evidence are different in civil cases are they not.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
It’s quite ugly, I agree. However politics is a rough old game. I am less OMG-its-a-fox, flustered-young-chicken than you. Perhaps it is just because I am cynical and aged
The Left, allied with Remoaners, and - ironically - Dom Cummings - has embarked on a dedicated campaign to destroy Boris Johnson and they are happy to say virtually anything about him, much true, much not. I’m not surprised he is fighting back quite hard
Watch the debate and that isn’t what happened. It is clear that the PM, doubtless based on the advice of wiser heads than his, arrived intending to strike a contrite tone which, during his opening statement, he mostly did.
But Starmer was unusually effective and blow after blow of his struck home, listened to in silence by a stunned House. It was when Johnson rose to respond right after that he lost it and started riffing about Saville, wrecking his game plan. He was simply lashing out, and since it proved counter-productive, wasn’t a strong choice as to how to fight back.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
See my comment towards the end of the last thread. I think it's a deliberate dead cat and we should decline to even discuss it, because the whole idea is likely to be that we talk about that instead of Partygate.
Didn't see your comment Nick but I agreed with you re the deliberate dead cat theory for several reasons (some of our thoughts may overlap, some may not):
1. Starmer was Head of the DPP at the time. Whilst he doesn't look to have a direct link to the case, people will still question whether he could have done more and / or should have intervened as opposed to being hands-off - hurt if you did, hurt if you didn't;
2. If Gray finds that it's civil servants / Carrie who were responsible for the breach but not Johnson, and Starmer states Johnson needs to take responsibility for actions carried out under his roof, Johnson can pivot and say why didn't Starmer do the same when the CPS didn't prosecute Saville and he was its' head? There are obvious differences but most people won't get the nuances;
3. It encourages people / the press to look into other instances of Starmer's legal career / stint at DPP where arguably he does have more to worry about. Michael Ashcroft makes it very clear (as do the victims of Carl Beech) that, while Starmer was not DPP at the time, he very much instituted the policy of "believe every victim" which was at the root of Beech being believed and high-profile victims been subjected to investigation (Afzal also had a role in this, which means his defence of Starmer is not entirely without self-interest). He also defended a number of cases / characters that are unlikely to find much favour amongst more socially conservative voters.
On number 3, it's interesting that that is very much counter to the situation regarding Savile.
The woman that followed SKS was far more objectionable as DPP.
China eyes 'armed unification' with Taiwan by 2027: key academic https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-eyes-armed-unification-with-Taiwan-by-2027-key-academic ...Chinese President Xi Jinping will employ force to unify Taiwan with China by 2027, an influential Chinese academic who advises Beijing on foreign policy told Nikkei. Jin Canrong, a professor in Renmin University's School of International Studies, notes that the People's Liberation Army already has a posture superior to that of the U.S. to deal with a contingency involving Taiwan. He is known as one of China's most vocal hawks, and his online comments are followed by many. Xi has set Taiwan unification as a goal but has not indicated a timeline. Jin said: "Once the National Congress of the Communist Party of China is over in the fall of 2022, the scenario of armed unification will move toward becoming a reality. It is very likely that the leadership will move toward armed unification by 2027, the 100th anniversary of the PLA's founding."...
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
See my comment towards the end of the last thread. I think it's a deliberate dead cat and we should decline to even discuss it, because the whole idea is likely to be that we talk about that instead of Partygate.
Didn't see your comment Nick but I agreed with you re the deliberate dead cat theory for several reasons (some of our thoughts may overlap, some may not):
1. Starmer was Head of the DPP at the time. Whilst he doesn't look to have a direct link to the case, people will still question whether he could have done more and / or should have intervened as opposed to being hands-off - hurt if you did, hurt if you didn't;
2. If Gray finds that it's civil servants / Carrie who were responsible for the breach but not Johnson, and Starmer states Johnson needs to take responsibility for actions carried out under his roof, Johnson can pivot and say why didn't Starmer do the same when the CPS didn't prosecute Saville and he was its' head? There are obvious differences but most people won't get the nuances;
3. It encourages people / the press to look into other instances of Starmer's legal career / stint at DPP where arguably he does have more to worry about. Michael Ashcroft makes it very clear (as do the victims of Carl Beech) that, while Starmer was not DPP at the time, he very much instituted the policy of "believe every victim" which was at the root of Beech being believed and high-profile victims been subjected to investigation (Afzal also had a role in this, which means his defence of Starmer is not entirely without self-interest). He also defended a number of cases / characters that are unlikely to find much favour amongst more socially conservative voters.
Are you talking about Michael Ashcroft the tax avoiding (keeping it libel free) Belizean Tax Exile?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
What happens to the Scons over the next two years if the non-Scottish-constituency Tory MPs continue to resemble some of the less mobile organisms in the tanks at Plymouth Marine Aquarium? Mr Johnson will still be i/c at the next GE - and the next Holyrood election for all I know.
If the members had picked Murdo Fraser rather than Ruth Davidson as leader and split off from the London-based party when things were quiet, they'd be insulated.
Now, if they split off, they're basically admitting that the SNP were right all along to demand independence from Westminster and the UK. Edit: and some other truly Unionist party will be along in a moment to siphon off some of the vote. In fact there's already one - Ms Ballantyne's lot.
But if they don't, they'll be competing with Slab for third place.
How to resolve that, I have no idea.
Perhaps they have already created the required distance. Time will tell.
Doubt it. All they are doing, every tine they say " a big dog left the mess not me" is admitting how shite the governing party of the UK is, every day. And they are the ones who demand subservience to that government.
I love the emotive language "subservience". In the event of Scottish Independence, do you think Orkney should have to show "subservience" to Edinburgh? I mean, surely if the argument that it was "unfair for rUK to have "dragged" Scotland out of EU, surely the same logic is that it is unfair that Glaswegians should "drag" Orkney (and other regions of Scotland) out of UK? I believe some Nats say that the devolved nations should have been able to veto Brexit (and I have some sympathy with that view), so surely the islanders of Orkney should be able to do the same by the same logic?
Orkney isn't a nation. It would be more akin to the occasional oddballs who want an independent Yorkshire.
Orkney has it's own culture and very independent history and was annexed to Scotland in 1471. Suggest you look up history before posting rebuttals and making ludicrous false comparisons maybe?
We finally found a type of nationalism you adore. Hurray. What makes Orcadians so unique?
I don't adore any kind of nationalism. Nationalism requires a belief in exceptionalism, which is genuinely silly and irrational. It can be a rallying point where there is genuine national threat or repression (such as Ireland), but Scotland is not repressed. For large part of history they have been very enthusiastic oppressors!
Nationalism does not require a belief in exceptionalism.
Can I strongly encourage you to actually learn a bit about the phenomenon of nationalism? It's really a lot more interesting than you think, and a well-rounded view of it would take in not just the variants you seem focused on. A good place to start would be a detailed exploration of the (failed) revolutions of 1848. It's really hard to read through those without having at least a little sympathy with the nationalist elements. Nationalism was more than just a "rallying point". In my view it was an essential curative to not just the continental empires of the day, but as a binding force that was needed to overcome the ideological terrors. When caught between the prongs of conservative absolutism and proto-socialist unrest, some of the liberals of the day turned to nationalism to try to cement the democratic reforms and keep order. In my reading, these were largely the good guys of the period, and though they lost they set in train a number of important reforms. The elevation of Hungary from province to an equal with Austria, the binding together of Italy and the removal of the Pope's absolutist secular authority, the ending of the Roman-style use of cross provincial soldier-police forces. These were the genies that nationalism let out of the bottle that, by the end of the century, had markedly improved the lives of the people.
It's not all a one-way street of nationalism = Nazis = bad. It's a lot more of a mixed bag than you are willing to admit.
Philip Bobbitt is very good on nationalism.
Nationalism to me recalls the Blackadder spies stuff from General Melchett:
English Nationalism - 'nasty, racist scum, pursuing their evil perverted view of foreigners...' Scottish Nationalim - 'warm, welcoming to all, celebrating diversity within the context of the great Scottish nation...'
Its quite possible to love ones country and think other countries are great too.
The notion that nationalism is a bad thing because Nazis is as puerile as the notion that socialism is a bad thing because Nazis.
Nationalism in general is a good thing. It is a belief that your own nation should take responsibility for itself and its own actions. That the people of the nation are responsible for the nation. That is an entirely reasonable and moderate set of beliefs.
It is also worth thinking historically what the opposite of nationalism has been: not "internationalism" as some naively like to think, but imperialism.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run itself is no bad thing.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run *other people's* nations, regardless of what the people in the other nation think ... that is when things turn nasty.
And it's worth remembering that the Nazis like all other attempted empire builders before them became particularly fond of the latter idea.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
What happens to the Scons over the next two years if the non-Scottish-constituency Tory MPs continue to resemble some of the less mobile organisms in the tanks at Plymouth Marine Aquarium? Mr Johnson will still be i/c at the next GE - and the next Holyrood election for all I know.
If the members had picked Murdo Fraser rather than Ruth Davidson as leader and split off from the London-based party when things were quiet, they'd be insulated.
Now, if they split off, they're basically admitting that the SNP were right all along to demand independence from Westminster and the UK. Edit: and some other truly Unionist party will be along in a moment to siphon off some of the vote. In fact there's already one - Ms Ballantyne's lot.
But if they don't, they'll be competing with Slab for third place.
How to resolve that, I have no idea.
Perhaps they have already created the required distance. Time will tell.
Doubt it. All they are doing, every tine they say " a big dog left the mess not me" is admitting how shite the governing party of the UK is, every day. And they are the ones who demand subservience to that government.
I love the emotive language "subservience". In the event of Scottish Independence, do you think Orkney should have to show "subservience" to Edinburgh? I mean, surely if the argument that it was "unfair for rUK to have "dragged" Scotland out of EU, surely the same logic is that it is unfair that Glaswegians should "drag" Orkney (and other regions of Scotland) out of UK? I believe some Nats say that the devolved nations should have been able to veto Brexit (and I have some sympathy with that view), so surely the islanders of Orkney should be able to do the same by the same logic?
Orkney isn't a nation. It would be more akin to the occasional oddballs who want an independent Yorkshire.
Orkney has it's own culture and very independent history and was annexed to Scotland in 1471. Suggest you look up history before posting rebuttals and making ludicrous false comparisons maybe?
We finally found a type of nationalism you adore. Hurray. What makes Orcadians so unique?
I don't adore any kind of nationalism. Nationalism requires a belief in exceptionalism, which is genuinely silly and irrational. It can be a rallying point where there is genuine national threat or repression (such as Ireland), but Scotland is not repressed. For large part of history they have been very enthusiastic oppressors!
How many more elections do the SNP have to win before it passes for repression? One, two, three, ten, one hundred?
Nah.
If we really wanted to oppress the SNP we would follow the Spanish route and not only ban indyref2 but arrest Sturgeon too, suspend Holyrood and impose UK government direct rule on Scotland
So pre 1999 Scotland was oppressed in HYFUD world. Interesting.
Scotland was not, as it had MPs at Westminster and Brown, Cook, Dewar etc in Blair's Cabinet and Rifkind, Laing etc in Major's Cabinet were all Scots.
The SNP were as they only surged post devolution
Looking at the Westminster results, the SNP were on 11%-14% before the Poll Tax, and then knocking around the 20% mark afterwards. It was a 50-100% increase in the vote share. That was the foot in the door. The first decade of devolution saw very little change in the SNP vote. Only in 2015 did it suddenly shoot up to 50%.
Poll tax and indyref were the inflection points. Devolution was not.
That is rather ignoring the progress of the SNP at Holyrood elections, where they from 24% in 2003 to 33% in 2007 to 45% in 2011.
Without that progress there would have been no independence referendum.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
The Golden Source imo on Boris is Peter Oborne. Former champion, friend, tennis partner, bezzie mate. Knows him better than most anyone (and certainly anyone on here).
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
I think you’ll find the burden of proof is the other way round….
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
Ah, sorry, just answered that completely by accident ...
Ha yes –– the reason the subsequent match never happened (I'm embarrassed to admit) is because the English gave up.
Our excuse was that, because Coldstream (SCO) was vastly larger than Wark (ENG) the Scots would always be able to field a stronger side and thus would always win, and therefore there was no point continuing with the annual football match.
Rather pathetic, but apparently true – hence why the Ba Meadow (as it's known) will –presumably – forever be a little bit of Scotland within England.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was ordered to pay out £100k in a civil case over the rape. Of course if Mr Goodwillie (excellently ironic name) wants to take McDermid to court over being defamed as a rapist, he should knock himself out.
What happens to the Scons over the next two years if the non-Scottish-constituency Tory MPs continue to resemble some of the less mobile organisms in the tanks at Plymouth Marine Aquarium? Mr Johnson will still be i/c at the next GE - and the next Holyrood election for all I know.
If the members had picked Murdo Fraser rather than Ruth Davidson as leader and split off from the London-based party when things were quiet, they'd be insulated.
Now, if they split off, they're basically admitting that the SNP were right all along to demand independence from Westminster and the UK. Edit: and some other truly Unionist party will be along in a moment to siphon off some of the vote. In fact there's already one - Ms Ballantyne's lot.
But if they don't, they'll be competing with Slab for third place.
How to resolve that, I have no idea.
Perhaps they have already created the required distance. Time will tell.
Doubt it. All they are doing, every tine they say " a big dog left the mess not me" is admitting how shite the governing party of the UK is, every day. And they are the ones who demand subservience to that government.
I love the emotive language "subservience". In the event of Scottish Independence, do you think Orkney should have to show "subservience" to Edinburgh? I mean, surely if the argument that it was "unfair for rUK to have "dragged" Scotland out of EU, surely the same logic is that it is unfair that Glaswegians should "drag" Orkney (and other regions of Scotland) out of UK? I believe some Nats say that the devolved nations should have been able to veto Brexit (and I have some sympathy with that view), so surely the islanders of Orkney should be able to do the same by the same logic?
Orkney isn't a nation. It would be more akin to the occasional oddballs who want an independent Yorkshire.
Orkney has it's own culture and very independent history and was annexed to Scotland in 1471. Suggest you look up history before posting rebuttals and making ludicrous false comparisons maybe?
We finally found a type of nationalism you adore. Hurray. What makes Orcadians so unique?
I don't adore any kind of nationalism. Nationalism requires a belief in exceptionalism, which is genuinely silly and irrational. It can be a rallying point where there is genuine national threat or repression (such as Ireland), but Scotland is not repressed. For large part of history they have been very enthusiastic oppressors!
Nationalism does not require a belief in exceptionalism.
Can I strongly encourage you to actually learn a bit about the phenomenon of nationalism? It's really a lot more interesting than you think, and a well-rounded view of it would take in not just the variants you seem focused on. A good place to start would be a detailed exploration of the (failed) revolutions of 1848. It's really hard to read through those without having at least a little sympathy with the nationalist elements. Nationalism was more than just a "rallying point". In my view it was an essential curative to not just the continental empires of the day, but as a binding force that was needed to overcome the ideological terrors. When caught between the prongs of conservative absolutism and proto-socialist unrest, some of the liberals of the day turned to nationalism to try to cement the democratic reforms and keep order. In my reading, these were largely the good guys of the period, and though they lost they set in train a number of important reforms. The elevation of Hungary from province to an equal with Austria, the binding together of Italy and the removal of the Pope's absolutist secular authority, the ending of the Roman-style use of cross provincial soldier-police forces. These were the genies that nationalism let out of the bottle that, by the end of the century, had markedly improved the lives of the people.
It's not all a one-way street of nationalism = Nazis = bad. It's a lot more of a mixed bag than you are willing to admit.
Philip Bobbitt is very good on nationalism.
Nationalism to me recalls the Blackadder spies stuff from General Melchett:
English Nationalism - 'nasty, racist scum, pursuing their evil perverted view of foreigners...' Scottish Nationalim - 'warm, welcoming to all, celebrating diversity within the context of the great Scottish nation...'
Its quite possible to love ones country and think other countries are great too.
The notion that nationalism is a bad thing because Nazis is as puerile as the notion that socialism is a bad thing because Nazis.
Nationalism in general is a good thing. It is a belief that your own nation should take responsibility for itself and its own actions. That the people of the nation are responsible for the nation. That is an entirely reasonable and moderate set of beliefs.
It is also worth thinking historically what the opposite of nationalism has been: not "internationalism" as some naively like to think, but imperialism.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run itself is no bad thing.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run *other people's* nations, regardless of what the people in the other nation think ... that is when things turn nasty.
And it's worth remembering that the Nazis like all other attempted empire builders before them became particularly fond of the latter idea.
No it turns nasty and the principle of nationalism comes into disrepute when two sets of people disagree on what constitutes an "other nation" - as we are seeing in Ukraine/China-Taiwan/etc.
You could do with reading Philip Bobbitt now that I think about it.
What happens to the Scons over the next two years if the non-Scottish-constituency Tory MPs continue to resemble some of the less mobile organisms in the tanks at Plymouth Marine Aquarium? Mr Johnson will still be i/c at the next GE - and the next Holyrood election for all I know.
If the members had picked Murdo Fraser rather than Ruth Davidson as leader and split off from the London-based party when things were quiet, they'd be insulated.
Now, if they split off, they're basically admitting that the SNP were right all along to demand independence from Westminster and the UK. Edit: and some other truly Unionist party will be along in a moment to siphon off some of the vote. In fact there's already one - Ms Ballantyne's lot.
But if they don't, they'll be competing with Slab for third place.
How to resolve that, I have no idea.
Perhaps they have already created the required distance. Time will tell.
Doubt it. All they are doing, every tine they say " a big dog left the mess not me" is admitting how shite the governing party of the UK is, every day. And they are the ones who demand subservience to that government.
I love the emotive language "subservience". In the event of Scottish Independence, do you think Orkney should have to show "subservience" to Edinburgh? I mean, surely if the argument that it was "unfair for rUK to have "dragged" Scotland out of EU, surely the same logic is that it is unfair that Glaswegians should "drag" Orkney (and other regions of Scotland) out of UK? I believe some Nats say that the devolved nations should have been able to veto Brexit (and I have some sympathy with that view), so surely the islanders of Orkney should be able to do the same by the same logic?
Orkney isn't a nation. It would be more akin to the occasional oddballs who want an independent Yorkshire.
Orkney has it's own culture and very independent history and was annexed to Scotland in 1471. Suggest you look up history before posting rebuttals and making ludicrous false comparisons maybe?
We finally found a type of nationalism you adore. Hurray. What makes Orcadians so unique?
I don't adore any kind of nationalism. Nationalism requires a belief in exceptionalism, which is genuinely silly and irrational. It can be a rallying point where there is genuine national threat or repression (such as Ireland), but Scotland is not repressed. For large part of history they have been very enthusiastic oppressors!
Nationalism does not require a belief in exceptionalism.
Can I strongly encourage you to actually learn a bit about the phenomenon of nationalism? It's really a lot more interesting than you think, and a well-rounded view of it would take in not just the variants you seem focused on. A good place to start would be a detailed exploration of the (failed) revolutions of 1848. It's really hard to read through those without having at least a little sympathy with the nationalist elements. Nationalism was more than just a "rallying point". In my view it was an essential curative to not just the continental empires of the day, but as a binding force that was needed to overcome the ideological terrors. When caught between the prongs of conservative absolutism and proto-socialist unrest, some of the liberals of the day turned to nationalism to try to cement the democratic reforms and keep order. In my reading, these were largely the good guys of the period, and though they lost they set in train a number of important reforms. The elevation of Hungary from province to an equal with Austria, the binding together of Italy and the removal of the Pope's absolutist secular authority, the ending of the Roman-style use of cross provincial soldier-police forces. These were the genies that nationalism let out of the bottle that, by the end of the century, had markedly improved the lives of the people.
It's not all a one-way street of nationalism = Nazis = bad. It's a lot more of a mixed bag than you are willing to admit.
Philip Bobbitt is very good on nationalism.
Nationalism to me recalls the Blackadder spies stuff from General Melchett:
English Nationalism - 'nasty, racist scum, pursuing their evil perverted view of foreigners...' Scottish Nationalim - 'warm, welcoming to all, celebrating diversity within the context of the great Scottish nation...'
Its quite possible to love ones country and think other countries are great too.
The notion that nationalism is a bad thing because Nazis is as puerile as the notion that socialism is a bad thing because Nazis.
Nationalism in general is a good thing. It is a belief that your own nation should take responsibility for itself and its own actions. That the people of the nation are responsible for the nation. That is an entirely reasonable and moderate set of beliefs.
It is also worth thinking historically what the opposite of nationalism has been: not "internationalism" as some naively like to think, but imperialism.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run itself is no bad thing.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run *other people's* nations, regardless of what the people in the other nation think ... that is when things turn nasty.
And it's worth remembering that the Nazis like all other attempted empire builders before them became particularly fond of the latter idea.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was ordered to pay out £100k in a civil case over the rape. Of course if Mr Goodwillie (excellently ironic name) wants to take McDermid to court over being defamed as a rapist, he should knock himself out.
He was refused the right to appeal which must have been a factor in that decision.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7bn of losses - £8.7bn ! - on £12.1bn of PPE bought in 2020/21.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
Unfortunately, it is in the nature of Boris Johnson to lash out with accusations whenever under pressure. And why bother worrying if they are true or not, because now we're talking about his accusations and not the fact that he lied to the House.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was ordered to pay out £100k in a civil case over the rape. Of course if Mr Goodwillie (excellently ironic name) wants to take McDermid to court over being defamed as a rapist, he should knock himself out.
He was refused the right to appeal which must have been a factor in that decision.
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7bn of losses - £8.7bn ! - on £12.1bn of PPE bought in 2020/21.
According to Peston
Yep - we ended up paying well over the odds (as did most over countries) when we suddenly required a lot more PPE than we had in stores.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was ordered to pay out £100k in a civil case over the rape. Of course if Mr Goodwillie (excellently ironic name) wants to take McDermid to court over being defamed as a rapist, he should knock himself out.
He was refused the right to appeal which must have been a factor in that decision.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
It's a single meadow known as the Ba Green just south of Coldstream on the English side, next to the B6350. As @Carnyx explains above it was the prize for an annual football match between the the men of Coldstream and the men of Wark. But the Englishmen gave up at some point because they kept losing (see my post above).
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
The big unknown here for Tory MPs is whether Johnson has well and truly lost the apparent electoral mojo he seemed to have in 2019. We obviously have all of this polling pointing pretty clearly to that, but I can see why they are hesitant.
As a point of comparison, at the time of the phone hacking scandal, which was the biggest story in this country seemingly for weeks and weeks, there were innumerable parliamentary debates about it and much of the opposition's time was focused on David Cameron's decision to hire Andy Coulson as a reflection of either poor judgement or corruption. The bit that tickled me the most was when Gerald Kaufman stood up in one of these debates and dramatically declared that this was 'the government's biggest scandal since the Profumo Affair,' or words to that effect. Sir Gerald was maybe a bit prone to overstatement but it points to how seriously these events can be viewed at the time, only to have very little relevance in the following General Election - I can't remember it being mentioned once.
Bear in mind that I am not saying that I personally think Johnson should stay - morally, he should go. But sometimes in the heat of the moment there's the temptation to look at current trends and assume a smooth trajectory from there; if you had done that at any single point in the 2017-19 parliament you'd probably have had wildly different results almost from one month to the next. Remember even on the eve of the 2019 election, when Johnson was 'going to' lose his own constituency?
The clincher that could persuade enough Tory MPs to decide to submit their letters is that Johnson seems steadily to be making this worse by the way in which he dealt with the initial revelations and then the fallout. Cameron and Blair both had pretty good techniques for diffusing the fury around their respective scandals, accepting the blame in a suitably ambiguous way and moving on. But they were both good performers in parliament (Cameron in particular) while Johnson has never performed well in parliament and never showed any interest in doing so, and parliament is currently the main filter for his response to any allegations and criticism.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
Apart from Berwick, the border was actually extremely stable from since before the Norman Conquest, so stable that you can see where a Scottish village won the last annual footie match with the English village on the other side of the border (the Tweed: the pitch remained the territory of the winner till the next match, which for some reason never happened ...).
The one bit that was a bit iffy was a small patch, the Debatable Lands which was never properly sorted out as the locals exploited the legal ambiguity that it had for some reason, but that was dealt with by treaty sometime like 1550.
Orkney and Shetland do have a distinct constitutional history from the rest of Scotland. Self-determination as a crown dependency is not inconceivable.
From Wiki:
"Orkney was colonized and later annexed by the Kingdom of Norway in 875 and settled by the Norsemen. In 1472, the Parliament of Scotland absorbed the Earldom of Orkney into the Kingdom of Scotland, following failure to pay a dowry promised to James III of Scotland by the family of his bride, Margaret of Denmark."
If only the dowry had been paid!
Interesting to think that St Magnus Cathedral, easily the most spectacular building in the Northern Isles, was built well before Orkney found itself in Scotland.
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
It's a single meadow known as the Ba Green just south of Coldstream on the English side, next to the B6350. As @Carnyx explains above it was the prize for an annual football match between the the men of Coldstream and the men of Wark. But the Englishmen gave up at some point because they kept losing (see my post above).
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
It's a single meadow known as the Ba Green just south of Coldstream on the English side, next to the B6350. As @Carnyx explains above it was the prize for an annual football match between the the men of Coldstream and the men of Wark. But the Englishmen gave up at some point because they kept losing (see my post above).
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
I think it must be the one on the loop south of Coldstream here?
The big unknown here for Tory MPs is whether Johnson has well and truly lost the apparent electoral mojo he seemed to have in 2019. We obviously have all of this polling pointing pretty clearly to that, but I can see why they are hesitant.
As a point of comparison, at the time of the phone hacking scandal, which was the biggest story in this country seemingly for weeks and weeks, there were innumerable parliamentary debates about it and much of the opposition's time was focused on David Cameron's decision to hire Andy Coulson as a reflection of either poor judgement or corruption. The bit that tickled me the most was when Gerald Kaufman stood up in one of these debates and dramatically declared that this was 'the government's biggest scandal since the Profumo Affair,' or words to that effect. Sir Gerald was maybe a bit prone to overstatement but it points to how seriously these events can be viewed at the time, only to have very little relevance in the following General Election - I can't remember it being mentioned once.
Bear in mind that I am not saying that I personally think Johnson should stay - morally, he should go. But sometimes in the heat of the moment there's the temptation to look at current trends and assume a smooth trajectory from there; if you had done that at any single point in the 2017-19 parliament you'd probably have had wildly different results almost from one month to the next. Remember even on the eve of the 2019 election, when Johnson was 'going to' lose his own constituency?
The clincher that could persuade enough Tory MPs to decide to submit their letters is that Johnson seems steadily to be making this worse by the way in which he dealt with the initial revelations and then the fallout. Cameron and Blair both had pretty good techniques for diffusing the fury around their respective scandals, accepting the blame in a suitably ambiguous way and moving on. But they were both good performers in parliament (Cameron in particular) while Johnson has never performed well in parliament and never showed any interest in doing so, and parliament is currently the main filter for his response to any allegations and criticism.
Good post. Agree.
And it supports my exhaustive survey of provincial taxi drivers (n=2) 100% of whom thought that Boris was more sinned against than sinning.
China eyes 'armed unification' with Taiwan by 2027: key academic https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-eyes-armed-unification-with-Taiwan-by-2027-key-academic ...Chinese President Xi Jinping will employ force to unify Taiwan with China by 2027, an influential Chinese academic who advises Beijing on foreign policy told Nikkei. Jin Canrong, a professor in Renmin University's School of International Studies, notes that the People's Liberation Army already has a posture superior to that of the U.S. to deal with a contingency involving Taiwan. He is known as one of China's most vocal hawks, and his online comments are followed by many. Xi has set Taiwan unification as a goal but has not indicated a timeline. Jin said: "Once the National Congress of the Communist Party of China is over in the fall of 2022, the scenario of armed unification will move toward becoming a reality. It is very likely that the leadership will move toward armed unification by 2027, the 100th anniversary of the PLA's founding."...
If Putin gets away with annexing Ukraine, Xi will swiftly follow and annex Taiwan no doubt
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
Personally I'd go further and say that a second referendum wouldn't have been the same question anyway. You'd have been asking for endorsement of an actual deal rather than a concept.
IMO much more important than the n'th day of Partygate, and should be leading the news. It's a massive failure by councils, police and wider society.
Did you know that within hours of May stopping being Home Secretary, there were emails circulating within the Home Office about taking a more "nuanced" approach to prosecution?
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
It's a single meadow known as the Ba Green just south of Coldstream on the English side, next to the B6350. As @Carnyx explains above it was the prize for an annual football match between the the men of Coldstream and the men of Wark. But the Englishmen gave up at some point because they kept losing (see my post above).
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
I think it must be the one on the loop south of Coldstream here?
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was done in a civil case and had to pay out £10K.
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
And why is that land Scottish?
It's a good question to which I don't know the answer. The border leaves the line of the Tweed west of Kelso, so Scotland includes towns such as Jedburgh and Selkirk, both south of the Tweed. However those were important Scottish towns in the Middle Ages, along with Roxburgh, now disappeared.
It's a single meadow known as the Ba Green just south of Coldstream on the English side, next to the B6350. As @Carnyx explains above it was the prize for an annual football match between the the men of Coldstream and the men of Wark. But the Englishmen gave up at some point because they kept losing (see my post above).
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
That's a good story.
Suggestions on the net that it remains the only part of one country conceded to another in a sporting contest, but I cannot verify that!
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
I think you have to remember that this was a referendum on a constitutional matter of huge, indeed, existential importance. Not just a vote in Parliament. Indeed, the pols effectively said this is too big for us, the people need to make the decision directly. To fail, then, to implement the decision would have massive consequences. Its always possible to review, or even overturn, but not until a serious amount of time has elapsed. Let's say a "generation".
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
Personally I'd go further and say that a second referendum wouldn't have been the same question anyway. You'd have been asking for endorsement of an actual deal rather than a concept.
Also true. It's a slightly wouldn't have started from here situation because ideally (imo) you would have had a "decision tree" series of votes but a vote, as @Scott_xP eloquently points out, is surely the very definition of democracy. .
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
I think you have to remember that this was a referendum on a constitutional matter of huge, indeed, existential importance. Not just a vote in Parliament. Indeed, the pols effectively said this is too big for us, the people need to make the decision directly. To fail, then, to implement the decision would have massive consequences. Its always possible to review, or even overturn, but not until a serious amount of time has elapsed. Let's say a "generation".
Never in the small print they could have had and could now have a vote every day on it. It would as I say have been hugely impractical but perfectly democratic.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
IMO much more important than the n'th day of Partygate, and should be leading the news. It's a massive failure by councils, police and wider society.
They're almost symptoms of the same disease though. We've reached a point in public life where the only consideration of whether people should resign is whether they can ride out the media storm or not. If you say that the PM shouldn't have to take responsibility for the behaviour of his staff (let alone his own behaviour) then you say the same about the Met Commissioner or a Council leader
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Which is why it would be a good idea for the speaker to force Boris to give his evidence or retract and apologise. It's one thing for a random to believe a conspiracy or facebook meme, it's another for the PM to use parliamentary privilege to defame the leader of the opposition.
Actually, Boris could defend himself - his argument would be that Starmer was DPP at the time and so should take responsibility, even if he was not directly involved. He may even argue why Starmer didn't take an interest in such a high profile case. Now, that causes problems for his own defence if he argues "I didn't know" about the parties but it's a defence.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
Since when did the UK become a country where one had to prove their innocence? This is the problem with you Trump people, you want to tear down all of our laws, traditions and culture to protect your chosen one.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
It is not apparent that you are100% sure how democracy works.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, in 2015
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
David Cameron also said he wouldn't resign in the case of a Leave vote and every Prime Minister down the ages has said things which, amazingly but that's politics for you, never transpired.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was done in a civil case and had to pay out £10K.
i get that, but he was not criminally convicted and this is ten years later. Should he not be allowed to ply an honest trade, especially as he has no criminal record?
We have civil and criminal cases for as reason. We also have the principles of guilt followed by redemption
Val McDoofus seems to think he should be prevented from earning a living FOREVER
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
I can't remember how Farage is regarded by increasingly shrill Brexiteers currently, but he suggested that there might be a second vote before the referendum (because he thought he might lose) and also subsequently because he thought it would finish the "whole thing" and get even stronger backing for out.
On the Shetland thing, it's quite interesting how violent the reaction is when someone brings it up, even as a joke. Touches a button.
I was canvassed by a SNP MSP (Biagi) in 2014 and asked him whether the Borders, with their own distinct identity (see all the place names), proximity to England, and Tories, would be allowed to remain in the UK. He didn't have a good answer.
Surprised by that. One very good reason is that the national border runs where it does and a rUK enforced partition would be an act of hostility. The Borderers are of course entitled to ask for a referendum of their own accord.
I don't think that's a good answer - a random, historic line in the moor that moved around a lot until quite recently.
It's a weakness in the argument for independence (among other strengths).
The English - Scottish border was settled on the Tweed-Solway line in 1018, precisely one thousand years ago, and formally ratified in the Treaty of York in 1237. It's one of the most stable land borders in the world - whole countries have come and gone since.
* Quibble about Berwick, but offering them a place in independent Scotland isn't within the SNP's gift.
Here's a quiz question for you...
Which is the only part of Scotland south of the Tweed where the Tweed otherwise forms the border?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Because the result (remaining) is “enacted” first, even if enacting it involves doing nothing. So there is an asymmetry.
Take it slowly for Leon it's all coming at him thick and fast. A lot to take in after a few gins.
He’s spent his life travelling the globe in search of the lost Kingdom of the Twats, so that he can assume his rightful throne. But being a twat, he has failed to find it. Failure like that is enough to drive anyone to drink.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
I wouldn't have stopped campaigning. The people are allowed to change their mind.
Now, I suspect it would have been better to wait until something happened that changed the relationship - because voters do not like (as a rule) being asked the same question twice.
But there is nothing undemocratic about people campaigning on a platform of having a referendum.
IMO much more important than the n'th day of Partygate, and should be leading the news. It's a massive failure by councils, police and wider society.
They're almost symptoms of the same disease though. We've reached a point in public life where the only consideration of whether people should resign is whether they can ride out the media storm or not. If you say that the PM shouldn't have to take responsibility for the behaviour of his staff (let alone his own behaviour) then you say the same about the Met Commissioner or a Council leader
An interesting aspect of current polling is the Tories are doing very poorly, yet there is no corresponding boost to a UKIP/Brexit/Reform type party. Instead, the Greens have the most notable pick-up. That may mean fewer naturally Conservative protest poll responses that will come easily come home in a proper contest.
But let's keep things in context. 2 months of good Labour leads and 27 months until the most likely next election date. There's a long way to go.
I wonder if you are confusing 2 different things there.
And we have Corbynite Labour voters heading towards the Greens (think @bigjohnowls ) while discontent middle of the road voters are swapping directly from the Tories to Labour.
In an election a lot of that Green vote will return to Labour but the Labour to Tory vote is in all likelihood lost to Labour or at greater risk of disappearing than it was when it seemed Boris was going to be replaced.
I'm a (right of) middle of the road discontent voter and I haven't swapped directly from the Tories to Labour. I am holding my vote and waiting to see who's doing what when I am able to use it.
Edit: and obviously as I go so do millions...
Remember we are looking at the votes of people who have expressed a preference when asked. You are among the 25% of Tory, 11% Labour and 22% of Lib Dems who don't know yet
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was done in a civil case and had to pay out £10K.
i get that, but he was not criminally convicted and this is ten years later. Should he not be allowed to ply an honest trade, especially as he has no criminal record?
We have civil and criminal cases for as reason. We also have the principles of guilt followed by redemption
Val McDoofus seems to think he should be prevented from earning a living FOREVER
She's withdrawing her support for her much loved football team, ie making a personal choice, not preventing him from earning a living.
Think of it as if someone had learned that you'd become a supplier to their favourite supplier of erotic love aids, and so then stopped buying their products.
I dunno this case, but it is from ten years ago, AND he was never convicted?!
Is Val McDonut saying any man ever accused of rape must never be allowed to pursue a career ever again, even if he is not convicted? Bit tough on your lifelong political hero, Alex Salmond, if so
He was done in a civil case and had to pay out £10K.
i get that, but he was not criminally convicted and this is ten years later. Should he not be allowed to ply an honest trade, especially as he has no criminal record?
We have civil and criminal cases for as reason. We also have the principles of guilt followed by redemption
Val McDoofus seems to think he should be prevented from earning a living FOREVER
He's been playing for another team. Looks like Fifers are less tolerant of 'boys will be boys' than the west coast lot.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Because the result (remaining) is “enacted” first, even if enacting it involves doing nothing. So there is an asymmetry.
That's a fair point.
But the people are allowed to change their mind. If the LibDems had won the election in 2017 with 52% of the vote on a policy of a new referendum, would that be fundamentally undemocratic? Or would that be the people changing their mind?
Fortunately, that didn't happen. But if it had, it wouldn't have been undemocratic, it would have been people changing their mind.
I also don't like (in general) this whole idea of 'a generation'. Voters get to choose their representatives every five years (or less). It shouldn't be the case that some people who voted a couple of General Elections ago, are able to tie the hands of today's elected representatives.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
I wouldn't have stopped campaigning. The people are allowed to change their mind.
Now, I suspect it would have been better to wait until something happened that changed the relationship - because voters do not like (as a rule) being asked the same question twice.
But there is nothing undemocratic about people campaigning on a platform of having a referendum.
I disagree. I think the calls for constant referendums on the EU after the public had rejected it would have been extremely damaging. I agree that if a party won power on that basis they could enact what they like but UKIP winning power on that basis would have been a sign there was probably a majority in favour anyway.
But the Leave side made all the claims necessary and possible regarding the consequences of a Remain vote. As such it would be very difficult to claim there had been any change that was not previously warned about. Certainly not the seismic shift that occurred in Scotland between the 2014 referendum and today with the Unionists campaigning on the basis of remaining in the EU as a big part of the appeal of rejecting Independence.
So my own very personal view is that it would have been bad faith and very damaging to continue to campaign for another vote after Remain had won but that the same does not apply in Scotland where the Brexit clearly formed a fundamental change for Scotland's future.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
You think that - in the event of a Remain victory - a second vote would have appalled Farage?
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Because the result (remaining) is “enacted” first, even if enacting it involves doing nothing. So there is an asymmetry.
That's a fair point.
But the people are allowed to change their mind. If the LibDems had won the election in 2017 with 52% of the vote on a policy of a new referendum, would that be fundamentally undemocratic? Or would that be the people changing their mind?
Fortunately, that didn't happen. But if it had, it wouldn't have been undemocratic, it would have been people changing their mind.
I also don't like (in general) this whole idea of 'a generation'. Voters get to choose their representatives every five years (or less). It shouldn't be the case that some people who voted a couple of General Elections ago, are able to tie the hands of today's elected representatives.
Indeed, especially when considering political parties or referendum positions that rely on the geriatric vote. Rather a lot of those voters will be dead by the time 10 or 20 years or whatever has rolled by. (Which is why I don't approve of IHT relief for political party donations, either).
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
Less ridiculous than your "Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt". And less boring.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
There speaks a browbeaten colonist with no backbone and a distaste for democracy. The other cheek of HYFUD's arse.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
There speaks a browbeaten colonist with no backbone and a distaste for democracy. The other cheek of HYFUD's arse.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Evidently, this was the clown’s plan to achieve power without being lumbered with any responsibility. Achieve a near enough miss in the referendum, knowing that inside the Tory party leavers would be in a clear majority. Fuel and manipulate their discontent to achieve the leadership after Cameron, based on Sturgeon style agitation for a second referendum that he would know was far enough away that he wouldn’t have to worry about it too much.
That would have given him a comfortable spell of office, free of having to worry about Brexit in reality.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
You think that - in the event of a Remain victory - a second vote would have appalled Farage?
Are you on crack?
No, but he would have become a very marginal antiquated figure. A Jacobite in the late 18th century
This is very different to what happened post-2016, when much of the British Establishment conspired to overthrow the biggest vote in British history
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
Excuse me but some of us stated on here very clearly that if we lost the vote (as to be honest we expected to do) we would abide by the result and not call for a rerun. We would then happily sit on the side saying I told you so as all the things we had predicted came to pass. But the vote would have been final for me.
Yep, I’m with you Richard, My vote, even on the morning, was finely balanced. My wallet and a large part of my head said Remain, another large part of my head and nearly of my heart said Leave. I genuinely decided on the day, after much agonising
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
You think that - in the event of a Remain victory - a second vote would have appalled Farage?
Are you on crack?
He didn't say that. He said that people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous. Take the - to actually mean a full stop. (Apologies Leon for considering correcting your writing )
Comments
A very very different thing. For a damn good reason
You lose a civil case “on the balance of probabilities”. So he could be guilty, he might not be. The evidence might be, ooh, 52/48 in favour of his guilt? Who decides in that case?
For a criminal case, you have to be guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt”, and for a reason, as something like a rape conviction will put you in prison for a long long time and probably ruin your life
Also, this is ten fucking years ago. Even if he is guilty, is no one ever allowed to get over the past? What does Val McDildo want him to do, to atone?? Must everyone convicted (or NOT actually convicted) of any crime that annoys her be condemned for the rest of time?
1. Starmer was Head of the DPP at the time. Whilst he doesn't look to have a direct link to the case, people will still question whether he could have done more and / or should have intervened as opposed to being hands-off - hurt if you did, hurt if you didn't;
2. If Gray finds that it's civil servants / Carrie who were responsible for the breach but not Johnson, and Starmer states Johnson needs to take responsibility for actions carried out under his roof, Johnson can pivot and say why didn't Starmer do the same when the CPS didn't prosecute Saville and he was its' head? There are obvious differences but most people won't get the nuances;
3. It encourages people / the press to look into other instances of Starmer's legal career / stint at DPP where arguably he does have more to worry about. Michael Ashcroft makes it very clear (as do the victims of Carl Beech) that, while Starmer was not DPP at the time, he very much instituted the policy of "believe every victim" which was at the root of Beech being believed and high-profile victims been subjected to investigation (Afzal also had a role in this, which means his defence of Starmer is not entirely without self-interest). He also defended a number of cases / characters that are unlikely to find much favour amongst more socially conservative voters.
.
Remember, the CPS (as far as I am aware) no longer have the Saville case papers, saying they were shredded "in line with normal procedures". Going to be hard to prove Starmer's total innocence on this.
But Starmer was unusually effective and blow after blow of his struck home, listened to in silence by a stunned House. It was when Johnson rose to respond right after that he lost it and started riffing about Saville, wrecking his game plan. He was simply lashing out, and since it proved counter-productive, wasn’t a strong choice as to how to fight back.
The woman that followed SKS was far more objectionable as DPP.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-eyes-armed-unification-with-Taiwan-by-2027-key-academic
...Chinese President Xi Jinping will employ force to unify Taiwan with China by 2027, an influential Chinese academic who advises Beijing on foreign policy told Nikkei.
Jin Canrong, a professor in Renmin University's School of International Studies, notes that the People's Liberation Army already has a posture superior to that of the U.S. to deal with a contingency involving Taiwan.
He is known as one of China's most vocal hawks, and his online comments are followed by many.
Xi has set Taiwan unification as a goal but has not indicated a timeline. Jin said: "Once the National Congress of the Communist Party of China is over in the fall of 2022, the scenario of armed unification will move toward becoming a reality. It is very likely that the leadership will move toward armed unification by 2027, the 100th anniversary of the PLA's founding."...
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Nationalism in general is a good thing. It is a belief that your own nation should take responsibility for itself and its own actions. That the people of the nation are responsible for the nation. That is an entirely reasonable and moderate set of beliefs.
It is also worth thinking historically what the opposite of nationalism has been: not "internationalism" as some naively like to think, but imperialism.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run itself is no bad thing.
People who think it's a good idea for their own nation to run *other people's* nations, regardless of what the people in the other nation think ... that is when things turn nasty.
And it's worth remembering that the Nazis like all other attempted empire builders before them became particularly fond of the latter idea.
Without that progress there would have been no independence referendum.
Ask Peter O what he thinks of Boris now.
There were actually two parties.
dipshit
Our excuse was that, because Coldstream (SCO) was vastly larger than Wark (ENG) the Scots would always be able to field a stronger side and thus would always win, and therefore there was no point continuing with the annual football match.
Rather pathetic, but apparently true – hence why the Ba Meadow (as it's known) will –presumably – forever be a little bit of Scotland within England.
You could do with reading Philip Bobbitt now that I think about it.
Internationalism in various forms is simply a form of nationalism.
According to Peston
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19890155.nicola-sturgeon-speaks-raith-rovers-sign-rapist-david-goodwillie/?ref=ebbn
"Three judges at the Edinburgh Court of Session threw out an appeal against the ruling in 2017."
and
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42152358
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-capitol-riots-and-the-plot-to-stop-brexit-have-in-common
The meadow, which is only 2.5 acres in size, has no inherent value save bragging rights as far as I am aware.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60214710
IMO much more important than the n'th day of Partygate, and should be leading the news. It's a massive failure by councils, police and wider society.
As a point of comparison, at the time of the phone hacking scandal, which was the biggest story in this country seemingly for weeks and weeks, there were innumerable parliamentary debates about it and much of the opposition's time was focused on David Cameron's decision to hire Andy Coulson as a reflection of either poor judgement or corruption. The bit that tickled me the most was when Gerald Kaufman stood up in one of these debates and dramatically declared that this was 'the government's biggest scandal since the Profumo Affair,' or words to that effect. Sir Gerald was maybe a bit prone to overstatement but it points to how seriously these events can be viewed at the time, only to have very little relevance in the following General Election - I can't remember it being mentioned once.
Bear in mind that I am not saying that I personally think Johnson should stay - morally, he should go. But sometimes in the heat of the moment there's the temptation to look at current trends and assume a smooth trajectory from there; if you had done that at any single point in the 2017-19 parliament you'd probably have had wildly different results almost from one month to the next. Remember even on the eve of the 2019 election, when Johnson was 'going to' lose his own constituency?
The clincher that could persuade enough Tory MPs to decide to submit their letters is that Johnson seems steadily to be making this worse by the way in which he dealt with the initial revelations and then the fallout. Cameron and Blair both had pretty good techniques for diffusing the fury around their respective scandals, accepting the blame in a suitably ambiguous way and moving on. But they were both good performers in parliament (Cameron in particular) while Johnson has never performed well in parliament and never showed any interest in doing so, and parliament is currently the main filter for his response to any allegations and criticism.
No shame there but to boil it down it consists of asking "the people" questions and then they decide one way or another.
Boris has now effectively survived Gray, is a damaged Met going to be able to do much?
From Wiki:
"Orkney was colonized and later annexed by the Kingdom of Norway in 875 and settled by the Norsemen. In 1472, the Parliament of Scotland absorbed the Earldom of Orkney into the Kingdom of Scotland, following failure to pay a dowry promised to James III of Scotland by the family of his bride, Margaret of Denmark."
If only the dowry had been paid!
Interesting to think that St Magnus Cathedral, easily the most spectacular building in the Northern Isles, was built well before Orkney found itself in Scotland.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/74426555
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Coldstream/@55.6414481,-2.2507417,1823m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48874260957a02eb:0xece0a3593fed8a08!8m2!3d55.65132!4d-2.253399
And it supports my exhaustive survey of provincial taxi drivers (n=2) 100% of whom thought that Boris was more sinned against than sinning.
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
.
“Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'”
'”So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'”
I guess you must have been a 2nd “people’s” voter, hence your squirming embarrassment. Fair enough
I don't agree.
I can't help feeling this particular stunt may not be his greatest work, although I could be wrong.
We have civil and criminal cases for as reason. We also have the principles of guilt followed by redemption
Val McDoofus seems to think he should be prevented from earning a living FOREVER
If it's good enough for Mr Brexit..
Now, I suspect it would have been better to wait until something happened that changed the relationship - because voters do not like (as a rule) being asked the same question twice.
But there is nothing undemocratic about people campaigning on a platform of having a referendum.
Think of it as if someone had learned that you'd become a supplier to their favourite supplier of erotic love aids, and so then stopped buying their products.
But the people are allowed to change their mind. If the LibDems had won the election in 2017 with 52% of the vote on a policy of a new referendum, would that be fundamentally undemocratic? Or would that be the people changing their mind?
Fortunately, that didn't happen. But if it had, it wouldn't have been undemocratic, it would have been people changing their mind.
I also don't like (in general) this whole idea of 'a generation'. Voters get to choose their representatives every five years (or less). It shouldn't be the case that some people who voted a couple of General Elections ago, are able to tie the hands of today's elected representatives.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1488521283465846786
But one thing was clear in my mind: whatever the result, respect it. For good and bad
If it had been Remain then, frankly, I would probably be the biggest euro-Federalist on PB by now. The EU only makes sense if you got for full on Federalism. Fiscal distribution, one bank, join the euro, get on with it, free movement yay
The idea of having a 2nd vote to cancel and avoid the first would have appalled me - and people like Farage, if they’d asked for it, would have been peripheral and ludicrous
But we chose otherwise
But the Leave side made all the claims necessary and possible regarding the consequences of a Remain vote. As such it would be very difficult to claim there had been any change that was not previously warned about. Certainly not the seismic shift that occurred in Scotland between the 2014 referendum and today with the Unionists campaigning on the basis of remaining in the EU as a big part of the appeal of rejecting Independence.
So my own very personal view is that it would have been bad faith and very damaging to continue to campaign for another vote after Remain had won but that the same does not apply in Scotland where the Brexit clearly formed a fundamental change for Scotland's future.
Are you on crack?
And less boring.
But enough said ..
But others may know better.
That would have given him a comfortable spell of office, free of having to worry about Brexit in reality.
Sadly for all of us, he cocked it up.
This is very different to what happened post-2016, when much of the British Establishment conspired to overthrow the biggest vote in British history
This is simply the case