Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Getting the tone of an ad completely wrong – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,258

    darkage said:

    If you want an entertaining read in to the problems with local government, the government response to the second commissioners report in to Liverpool City Council is worth a look.
    In summary, there were various "problems" at Liverpool Council and government sent in commissioners to sort it out.
    Something that keeps on happening across the country (slough, croydon etc)
    The commissioners are typically grandee senior local governmnet officers being paid quite a lot of money, well the going rate for a senior management level interim.
    In the case of Liverpool, the commissioners are now reporting back to Ministers that, actually, they need more commissioners to be appointed to take over more of the Council's functions.
    Ministers are not happy about this and expect to see more progress. And quickly!
    But actually, there is little sign of any progress, and lots of problems being unearthed.
    So what exactly can the government do now? They've already taken the "nuclear" step of taking over the Council.
    The problems being unearthed are perhaps connected to the structural problems with local government financing arrangements and 12 years of cynical government policy making in this regard. chickens coming home to roost, or something like that.
    Perhaps the limitations of this model of intervention in local governance are slowly becoming clear.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-city-council-commissioners-second-report

    I have always though behavioural scientists/consultants should be brought in to review British organisations that are dysfunctional, and make recommendations for new structures. Aubrey Daniels from the US is one who I think is excellent.
    Perhaps he could start with the Tory party.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    HYUFD said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

    Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
    It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
    If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
    Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
    Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
    Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

    (Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
    Sovereignty is not a very good term.
    Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

    We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

    But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
    From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

    Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

    Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
    But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

    You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
    Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

    As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

    And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

    The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
    But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

    Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

    I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

    You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
    Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

    Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

    Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
    You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.

    It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
    It was proven in court that British parliamentary statute was inferior to EU writ. The claim that we were still sovereign rests on the fact that leaving was permitted. So we've exercised that right and left. If doing so was to all intents and purposes an impossibility, then it can only have been a fig leaf of sovereignty. If it was always an inbuilt feature, you should be delighted - let member states come and go whenever they like and exercise all that lovely sovereignty the EU gives them.
    I have no issue with states coming and going.
    Do you?
    No, but I do recognise the significant barriers in the way of such a flexible approach. We were never 'supposed' to exercise the right to leave, and many within the EU hierarchy were clearly furious with British politicos for letting it happen. It was meant to be a one way street.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,258

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    HYUFD said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

    Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
    It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
    If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
    Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
    Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
    Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

    (Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
    Sovereignty is not a very good term.
    Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

    We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

    But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
    From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

    Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

    Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
    But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

    You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
    Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

    As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

    And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

    The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
    But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

    Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

    I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

    You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
    Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

    Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

    Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
    You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.

    It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
    It was proven in court that British parliamentary statute was inferior to EU writ. The claim that we were still sovereign rests on the fact that leaving was permitted. So we've exercised that right and left. If doing so was to all intents and purposes an impossibility, then it can only have been a fig leaf of sovereignty. If it was always an inbuilt feature, you should be delighted - let member states come and go whenever they like and exercise all that lovely sovereignty the EU gives them.
    I have no issue with states coming and going.
    Do you?
    The EU should have three tiers with transitions up and down the loosest two tiers very easy and also possible but difficult between the tightest tier sharing the euro and the rest.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I’ve just got on a bus from Woodbridge to Chisenbury.

    Guess how much it cost


    £6.00
    Not quite so bad, £4

    But it’s less than two miles, only two stops and takes less than five minutes

    Earlier today I got a bus from Devizes to Pewsey that went over ten miles, ten stops, and takes an hour, for only £3.60
    Hmm, the equivalent here is £3.60 for a more than 16 mile route, more than an hour, and it costs the same - but return.

    We didn't privatise the council buses in Edinburgh and the Lothians, and they have been profitable (covid dip aside).
    Probably somewhat higher demand in greater Edinburgh than in rural Wiltshire, tbf.
  • rcs1000 said:

    On Topic - in addition to referring to vegetables as "crudité" something which in my many years of living in and visiting the Keystone State yours truly NEVER heard from the lips of ANY Pennsylvanian, Oz also managed to refer to the grocery store where he was filmed shopping as “Wegners” an interesting mashup of two actual eastern PA supermarket chains: Wegmans and Redner's.

    Are you suggesting that Oz doesn't do his own shopping?
    Dr Oz probably DOES do at least some of his own shopping. Just NOT in Pennsylvania.

    Personally find it amazing that a seasoned & proven media performer could make such a monumental screwup of an ad. Doubly amazed that a professional political consultant would ever allow it to see the light of day.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I’ve just got on a bus from Woodbridge to Chisenbury.

    Guess how much it cost


    £6.00
    Not quite so bad, £4

    But it’s less than two miles, only two stops and takes less than five minutes

    Earlier today I got a bus from Devizes to Pewsey that went over ten miles, ten stops, and takes an hour, for only £3.60
    Hmm, the equivalent here is £3.60 for a more than 16 mile route, more than an hour, and it costs the same - but return.

    We didn't privatise the council buses in Edinburgh and the Lothians, and they have been profitable (covid dip aside).
    Probably somewhat higher demand in greater Edinburgh than in rural Wiltshire, tbf.
    The area includes some rural parts.
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    HYUFD said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

    Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
    It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
    If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
    Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
    Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
    Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

    (Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
    Sovereignty is not a very good term.
    Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

    We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

    But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
    From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

    Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

    Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
    But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

    You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
    Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

    As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

    And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

    The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
    But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

    Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

    I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

    You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
    Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

    Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

    Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
    This is why I find the SNPs argument about "Tory rule" so lazy. In whatever democracy you are in, there are always going to be people who don't get the representation they want.

    Tories in the EU. Labour in the UK. Unionists in Scotland. Tories in Edinburgh. Labour voters in Morningside.

    Breaking up or supporting these structures in the interest of your personal views is selfish.
    Labour voters in Morningside!?

    Do you mean to say that Mr Murray isn't a Labour MP?

    Edit: under the Scottish system, Unionists get plenty of representation, too.
    He must be the most tactically voted for MP in the UK. Any other candidates we can think of?

    And true, the Scottish system is way better. But your Orkney Lib Dems will never get the government they voted for.
    They did in 2010-15 in the UK, sort of, and ditto in Scotland from 1997 to 2010.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited August 2022

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    HYUFD said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

    Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
    It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
    If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
    Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
    Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
    Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

    (Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
    Sovereignty is not a very good term.
    Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

    We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

    But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
    From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

    Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

    Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
    But as "Ultimate overseer", Parliament always had the power to refuse.

    You can argue about de jure, but de facto you simply cannot.
    Legally no it did not. The only way to refuse was to leave.

    As yet another example. In the 19th century it was possible for a slave to buy themselves out of slavery. Now no one would claim that, until they did so, they were not slaves as they always had the theoretical option of doing that. They stopped being slaves by exercising that right.

    And no, for all the morons out here who don't understand what analogy is, I am not claiming that being part of the EU was akin to slavery.

    The fact that we could regain sovereignty by leaving the EU does not mean we were sovereign all the time. None of the definitions include 'the possibility of obtaining ultimate authority', they state that sovereignty is the possession of ultimate authority.
    But in that analogy, the slave needs access to exogenous means (money) in order to end his slavery.

    Britain retained an absolute right to end its membership of the EU.

    I am quite happy to concede that Britain conceded elements of sovreignty as you cite above but that doesn’t mean Britain ended its status as a sovereign nation thereby.

    You’re an absolutist on this subject, which is fine, but don’t expect everybody else to share that view.
    Not conceded Sovereignty, we pooled it with EU countries. So we lost an element of Sovereignty over some issues, but gained the ability to decide issues over other Sovereign countries. That is what being in a union means, shared decision making and solidarity.

    Personally I am not bothered by Sovereignty, as for most of my life I have had my own political ideas over ridden by other people. I am not too bothered whether those over ruling my desires were British, French or Romanian. The end result is the same.

    Over my 4 decades of adult life I have found more disagreement with my own UK governments than with EU ones. Hence I find EU governments less oppressive than UK.
    You’re right, pooling works better, I was using Tyndall’s language as cited.

    It’s important we are honestly nuanced about this, because Continuity Leavers insist somehow that the UK was no longer sovereign. That is false and extremist.
    The argument that our ability to leave meant there was no loss of sovereignty is overly pedantic. In practice we were part of a system that imposed significant constraints.
    I started this (or chipped in) by suggesting that it he word sovereign wasn’t helpful and that Britain inside the EU was just be “less flexible”.

    I don’t think those constraints were significant, though, as evidence by the fact that the government have done fuck all with the new flexibilities won, indeed have trouble identifying them.
    Immigration policy aside I think it's unlikely we'll do much of significance that we couldn't have done as an EU member. The fuss made over "trade deals" with the back of beyond is designed to obscure this but in fact goes to illustrate it.

    If we want Brexit to have a point we probably should be embracing some radicalism from right or left. Bonfire of regulation microstate type of direction or some full on old style socialism. This really would be "using our new freedoms" since it would have been difficult to impossible inside the EU. But it won't happen because we don't want it.
This discussion has been closed.