Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First post-Supreme Court polling finds the LDs main beneficiar

1234568

Comments

  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 359
    geoffw said:

    Was Ireland allied with the axis powers? No, it was nominally neutral. But the condolences reveal something else.

    But what's that something? That de Valera was a Nazi sympathiser? That he was a boring, detail-obsessed, petty bureaucrat at heart, who simply thought diplomatic protocol should never be ignored? Or that over the previous x years, he'd actually struck up something of a friendship with the German ambassador (who went to the same church as Dev, unlike his British oppo never patronised Dev and was decidedly not a committed Nazi), realised the poor sod must be terrified about what was going to happen to him next, and went to see what help the poor chap and his family might need.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979

    Breaking Boris doesnt want MPs killed - No10 statement


    If that is genuine can we have a citation please?
    BBC just read out a No 10 statement


    MPs on all sides should not have to suffer death threats or fear physical violence
    Thanks

    If I were a cynic which I am, that sounds almost like a dog whistle to crazies.
    Boris doesn't make a statement about threats to MPs: "he's a disgrace"

    Boris makes a statement condemning threats to MPs: "he's a disgrace because actually by making a statement he's encouraging people to do just that."
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    Let’s imagine the EU referendum was a referendum on gay marriage, and YES won 52/48...

    It is now for the HofC, who mainly supported NO, to make sense of what it means.

    The PM suggests allowing churches, mosques etc the choice of whether to marry gay people or not, while all registry offices are compelled to. A small section of YES MPs vote against the proposal as they want gay marriage to be allowed in every place traditional marriage is currently. A load of MPs who campaigned against gay marriage,but pledged to accept the referendum result, now vote against the PMs deal because the YES team did, and three years later, still no gay couple are allowed to marry

    I can’t believe the people who are fine with us still not having left the EU would be as comfortable with that scenario

    Your point is presumably that it was a mistake not to have a precisely defined version of Brexit agreed before the referendum?
    I'm sure our SNP friends would be quite understanding if, having won independence 52:48, the House of Commons refused to implement that independence because the issue of the currency wasn't resolved on the ballot paper.....
    That is a poor analogy.
    Just because you don't like it and have no answer doesn't make it poor.....
    No it really was poor.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    Boris or Jezza Binary Choice


    Voters decide. Every vote for Tory Swinson is a vote for Jester/ Cummings.

    Ther only 2 possible outcomes.
    No, there are endless permutations all of which are different results with different outcomes in terms of policy. What you write is palpably and clearly false. Given most of the LDs votes are coming from the educated your simplistic reduction is unlikely to cut much ice.
    Only 2 PMs are possible

    LDs know that in their hearts

    LAB 24 LD 22 Tory PM

    LAB 34 LD 12 LAB PM PEOPLES VOTE
    It is perfectly plausible that in a minority govt it is neither Boris or Corbyn that becomes PM as they are too divisive. And as we are seeing being PM on its own isnt particularly powerful, you cannot do what you want without the consent of parliament. Every single seat is valuable within parliament when the forecast is no-one winning.
    I don't see how we don't keep having elections until one of them is PM?

    Maybe one side gives up eventually but one election isn't going to be enough for anyone to give up.
    It depends on the numbers. If Sturgeon and Swinson say they would work with Thornberry, Starmer but not Corbyn, or Stewart, Hunt but not Johnson, others could emerge.

    It could still be Farage or Swinson as the biggest party leader if the election is in mid 2020 and the Tories implode, which doesnt seem impossible with the current trajectory.
    I assume we are having an election pretty soon, I don't think Labour members will let others choose their leader.

    Edit: Also SNP seem happy to work with Labour under its current leadership. Only the Lib Dems really.
    Labour plus SNP does not produce a majority on most polls, only Labour plus SNP plus LDs does
  • I don't think New Zealand and South Africa will be losing sleep after watching England so far in this World Cup.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    England try
  • HYUFD said:

    England try

    I thank you....
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    Let’s imagine the EU referendum was a referendum on gay marriage, and YES won 52/48...

    It is now for the HofC, who mainly supported NO, to make sense of what it means.

    The PM suggests allowing churches, mosques etc the choice of whether to marry gay people or not, while all registry offices are compelled to. A small section of YES MPs vote against the proposal as they want gay marriage to be allowed in every place traditional marriage is currently. A load of MPs who campaigned against gay marriage,but pledged to accept the referendum result, now vote against the PMs deal because the YES team did, and three years later, still no gay couple are allowed to marry

    I can’t believe the people who are fine with us still not having left the EU would be as comfortable with that scenario

    Your point is presumably that it was a mistake not to have a precisely defined version of Brexit agreed before the referendum?
    No, it’s that MPs shouldn’t have been given a vote on the deal.
    Saying that parliament should not get a vote - and accusing others of being 'anti-democratic' - seems an odd position.

    Since you seem to like analogies today, let's try a silly one. In 2016, Cameron resigned and is replaced with a.n.other who decides that it will be impossible to come to a deal with the EU. To get around this, he declares war on France and invades Calais, using UKIP troops emboldened by repeat showings of 'Dunkirk' and 'The Dam Busters'. This forces the EU to immediately eject us from the EU.

    Job done. Cue celebrations as the boat trains return our injured and dead.

    The PM did all this without consulting parliament, as he says he didn't need a vote to start the war, as it was done to obtain the result in the referendum - leaving the EU.

    Parliament has a role to play, and a referendum does not come above that. Governments make mistakes, and the idea that they should just do what they want - especially on a referendum where what 'leave' meant is so widely argued even amongst leavers - is odd.

    By all means, argue that the ERG'ers and others who voted against a deal were anti-democratic. But the vote itself wasn't.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978
    tlg86 said:

    Breaking Boris doesnt want MPs killed - No10 statement


    If that is genuine can we have a citation please?
    BBC just read out a No 10 statement


    MPs on all sides should not have to suffer death threats or fear physical violence
    Thanks

    If I were a cynic which I am, that sounds almost like a dog whistle to crazies.
    Boris doesn't make a statement about threats to MPs: "he's a disgrace"

    Boris makes a statement condemning threats to MPs: "he's a disgrace because actually by making a statement he's encouraging people to do just that."
    Let's hope I am mistaken and by accident or design it doesn't turn out to be a clarion call to nutters. I am sure the call for calm could be less abrupt.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,890

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ..snip..

    I was referring to how Irishmen who fought with British forces were treated after they returned home after the war. They were I believe forbidden from working for the government. Not something of which Ireland can be proud.

    3rd May 1945:
    the Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs, Éamon de Valera, accompanied by the Secretary of External Affairs, Joseph Walshe, ‘called on Dr Hempel, the German minister, last evening, to express his condolences’. The condolences were for Hitler who had committed suicide on 30 April. The Irish Times was prevented by the censor from publishing the following report from Reuter on 3 May: ‘Éire delegation mourns Hitler. Lisbon, May 3. The Éireann Minister in Lisbon today hoisted the German swastika at half mast over the legation as a sign of mourning for Hitler’.
    https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/de-valera-hitler-the-visit-of-condolence-may-1945/
    Did British and US governments send condolences on the death of Stalin? Would that have been more or less justifiable, or about the same?
    I don't know, perhaps you can tell me. But anyway your attempt at some kind of equivalence there doesn't work because we were allies of the Soviet Union. Was Ireland allied with the axis powers? No, it was nominally neutral. But the condolences reveal something else.
    We were allies of the SU in 1953? Well, there's a thing.
    Well done though on not expressing an opinion on whether it was right to send condolences on the death of the worst mass murdering dictator in history (™PB Tories, when they're not having a go at Maoist McDonnell or indulging in drivel about Hitler being a 'socialist').
    Where did "an opinion on whether it was right" come into it? You asked a factual question and I said I did not know answer. Your whole approach here is that of throwing a dead cat on the table. Your absurd ad-hominem is not worth a reply.



  • Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.

    That's not really right. Yes, we had the empire, but that wasn't much practical use in 1940. If anything it was a bit of an additional burden.

    Essentially, it is true that the only thing in 1940 standing between total Nazi domination of Europe (and probably most of Africa and the Middle East, and perhaps eventually the world) was Britain hanging on - much to the surprise of many in the US and elsewhere.
    Yes, that is true as well. It is nuanced.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568

    Breaking Boris doesnt want MPs killed - No10 statement


    If that is genuine can we have a citation please?
    BBC just read out a No 10 statement


    MPs on all sides should not have to suffer death threats or fear physical violence
    Stating the bleedin' obvious :D
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    Prince Harry supports Greta Thunberg's climate change strikes

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49836292
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    Let’s imagine the EU referendum was a referendum on gay marriage, and YES won 52/48...

    It is now for the HofC, who mainly supported NO, to make sense of what it means.

    The PM suggests allowing churches, mosques etc the choice of whether to marry gay people or not, while all registry offices are compelled to. A small section of YES MPs vote against the proposal as they want gay marriage to be allowed in every place traditional marriage is currently. A load of MPs who campaigned against gay marriage,but pledged to accept the referendum result, now vote against the PMs deal because the YES team did, and three years later, still no gay couple are allowed to marry

    I can’t believe the people who are fine with us still not having left the EU would be as comfortable with that scenario

    Your point is presumably that it was a mistake not to have a precisely defined version of Brexit agreed before the referendum?
    I'm sure our SNP friends would be quite understanding if, having won independence 52:48, the House of Commons refused to implement that independence because the issue of the currency wasn't resolved on the ballot paper.....
    This doesn't work because in your analogy the House of Commons is to Scotland what the European Parliament is to the UK. The equivalent would be a referendum won for independence 52:48, followed by a Scottish Parliamentary election which produced no clear winner.
    ...after MPs of all sides, elected on a pledge to honour the referendum result, had voted to enact Scottish independence
    Labour MPs were elected on a commitment to seek the same benefits as the single market and customs union, so the equivalent would be the Tories winning 40% in Scotland being committed to the same benefits as the union.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Let’s imagine the EU referendum was a referendum on gay marriage, and YES won 52/48...

    It is now for the HofC, who mainly supported NO, to make sense of what it means.

    The PM suggests allowing churches, mosques etc the choice of whether to marry gay people or not, while all registry offices are compelled to. A small section of YES MPs vote against the proposal as they want gay marriage to be allowed in every place traditional marriage is currently. A load of MPs who campaigned against gay marriage,but pledged to accept the referendum result, now vote against the PMs deal because the YES team did, and three years later, still no gay couple are allowed to marry

    I can’t believe the people who are fine with us still not having left the EU would be as comfortable with that scenario

    Your point is presumably that it was a mistake not to have a precisely defined version of Brexit agreed before the referendum?
    No, it’s that MPs shouldn’t have been given a vote on the deal.
    Saying that parliament should not get a vote - and accusing others of being 'anti-democratic' - seems an odd position.

    Since you seem to like analogies today, let's try a silly one. In 2016, Cameron resigned and is replaced with a.n.other who decides that it will be impossible to come to a deal with the EU. To get around this, he declares war on France and invades Calais, using UKIP troops emboldened by repeat showings of 'Dunkirk' and 'The Dam Busters'. This forces the EU to immediately eject us from the EU.

    Job done. Cue celebrations as the boat trains return our injured and dead.

    The PM did all this without consulting parliament, as he says he didn't need a vote to start the war, as it was done to obtain the result in the referendum - leaving the EU.

    Parliament has a role to play, and a referendum does not come above that. Governments make mistakes, and the idea that they should just do what they want - especially on a referendum where what 'leave' meant is so widely argued even amongst leavers - is odd.

    By all means, argue that the ERG'ers and others who voted against a deal were anti-democratic. But the vote itself wasn't.
    Are you misquoting me again?
  • I don't normally quote the Queen, but I would have thought that an Old Etonian Prime Minister would show more respect towards her, and so it might be instructive to do so now. Last Christmas she said:
    HMQ said:

    Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human-being is always a good first step towards greater understanding.

    Boris Johnson actions in the Commons yesterday, and in refusing to back away from the use of "Surrender" as a descriptor for the Benn Act today, are directly in contradiction to the advice offered to the Commonwealth by HMQ last Christmas.

    He seeks to divide us with this language for his own benefit. Even those Leavers committed to a no deal should have no time for such a tactic. It is contemptible behaviour.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278



    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.

    That's not really right. Yes, we had the empire, but that wasn't much practical use in 1940. If anything it was a bit of an additional burden.

    Essentially, it is true that the only thing in 1940 standing between total Nazi domination of Europe (and probably most of Africa and the Middle East, and perhaps eventually the world) was Britain hanging on - much to the surprise of many in the US and elsewhere.
    Yes, that is true as well. It is nuanced.
    And if it had been up to many at the top of the Tory Party we wouldn't have.
  • geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ..snip..

    I was referring to how Irishmen who fought with British forces were treated after they returned home after the war. They were I believe forbidden from working for the government. Not something of which Ireland can be proud.

    3rd May 1945:
    the Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs, Éamon de Valera, accompanied by the Secretary of External Affairs, Joseph Walshe, ‘called on Dr Hempel, the German minister, last evening, to express his condolences’. The condolences were for Hitler who had committed suicide on 30 April. The Irish Times was prevented by the censor from publishing the following report from Reuter on 3 May: ‘Éire delegation mourns Hitler. Lisbon, May 3. The Éireann Minister in Lisbon today hoisted the German swastika at half mast over the legation as a sign of mourning for Hitler’.
    https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/de-valera-hitler-the-visit-of-condolence-may-1945/
    Did British and US governments send condolences on the death of Stalin? Would that have been more or less justifiable, or about the same?
    I don't know, perhaps you can tell me. But anyway your attempt at some kind of equivalence there doesn't work because we were allies of the Soviet Union. Was Ireland allied with the axis powers? No, it was nominally neutral. But the condolences reveal something else.
    We were allies of the SU in 1953? Well, there's a thing.
    Well done though on not expressing an opinion on whether it was right to send condolences on the death of the worst mass murdering dictator in history (™PB Tories, when they're not having a go at Maoist McDonnell or indulging in drivel about Hitler being a 'socialist').
    Where did "an opinion on whether it was right" come into it? You asked a factual question and I said I did not know answer. Your whole approach here is that of throwing a dead cat on the table. Your absurd ad-hominem is not worth a reply.

    It came into it with the question in a post which you chose to reply to but not answer, to wit 'Would that have been more or less justifiable, or about the same?'. However feel free to flounce off in outrage, no doubt of the honest kind.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979
    HYUFD said:

    Prince Harry supports Greta Thunberg's climate change strikes

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49836292

    Prince Harry also said Botswana, which he is visiting on a tour of southern Africa, had been a place to "get away from it all" after his mother's death.

    He said he had visited the country soon after Diana, Princess of Wales, died in August 1997 and had made "some of his closest friends" there.

    "Now I feel deeply connected to this place and to Africa," he said during a visit to the Chobe Tree Reserve.


    I wonder what his carbon footprint is?
  • HYUFD said:

    Prince Harry supports Greta Thunberg's climate change strikes

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49836292

    Mount Gammonetna due an eruption.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689
    edited September 2019
    isam said:

    Are you misquoting me again?

    No.

    May I suggest you read what I wrote, and actually think of a valid response? The referendum result does not give the government permission to do whatever it wants: it is perfectly correct for parliament to have a say.

    Oh, and by the way, do not call me by my real name as you did the other day. It's not something I generally publicise on here, and your use of it during a discussion was just freaky.
  • Well England getting the job done, but it isn't exactly expansive rugby.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    Are you misquoting me again?

    No.

    May I suggest you read what I wrote, and actually think of a valid response? The referendum result does not give the government permission to do whatever it wants: it is perfectly correct for parliament to have a say.

    Oh, and by the way, do not call me by my real name as you did the other day. It's not something I generally publicise on here, and your use of it during a discussion was just freaky.
    I hoped it would get under your skin.

    Just stop misquoting me, it’s just a waste of time
  • Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/tompeck/status/1177183518306242565

    All MPs need to take some time out, go watch some Bob Ross and calm down.
  • Are the Tories trying to distract from some other story, I wonder?
  • isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2019
    Those desks must deeply indented with the distortions of disingenuous banging over decades.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978

    Are the Tories trying to distract from some other story, I wonder?

    What could that possibly be?
  • Are the Tories trying to distract from some other story, I wonder?

    What could that possibly be?
    I couldn't possibly speculate.
  • Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?
  • Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Ah, the Public again. They all have one hat.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited September 2019

    Are the Tories trying to distract from some other story, I wonder?

    Of course they are. No-one is talking about the remarkably damning judgment from the Supreme Court anymore. And yet is it possible to simply let this slide?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    edited September 2019

    He seeks to divide us with this language for his own benefit. Even those Leavers committed to a no deal should have no time for such a tactic. It is contemptible behaviour.

    This is in many ways the worst aspect of what he is doing. That it is about the personal interests of Boris Johnson and little else. I would have more time for him if the driver of this dangerously low-rent strategy was a passionate belief that disaster will ensue for the UK if it does not leave the European Union on 31 Oct.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978

    Those desks must deeply indented with the distortions of disingenuous banging over decades.
    Is there a double entendre that I am missing in that statement?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446



    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.

    That's not really right. Yes, we had the empire, but that wasn't much practical use in 1940. If anything it was a bit of an additional burden.
    That is quite an insult to all those Indian and Australian soldiers who fought in WWII to call them an "additional burden"
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry. I don’t see what’s so bad about calling you by your name. If you’re going to bother people with unwanted emails and sign them off using your name, is it really so surprising when they call you by it?

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965

    ...It is difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than it is small-minded pettiness and a self-loathing projecting outwards....

    Oh, I'm sure you can overcome that difficulty if you try... :)
  • Those desks must deeply indented with the distortions of disingenuous banging over decades.
    Is there a double entendre that I am missing in that statement?
    You might think that Mexicanpete, I couldn't possibly comment. ;.)
  • eristdoof said:



    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.

    That's not really right. Yes, we had the empire, but that wasn't much practical use in 1940. If anything it was a bit of an additional burden.
    That is quite an insult to all those Indian and Australian soldiers who fought in WWII to call them an "additional burden"
    What a completely daft comment. Why do people say such stupid things?
  • Are the Tories trying to distract from some other story, I wonder?

    They could try announcing a cull of stray kittens.
  • tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Prince Harry supports Greta Thunberg's climate change strikes

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49836292

    Prince Harry also said Botswana, which he is visiting on a tour of southern Africa, had been a place to "get away from it all" after his mother's death.

    He said he had visited the country soon after Diana, Princess of Wales, died in August 1997 and had made "some of his closest friends" there.

    "Now I feel deeply connected to this place and to Africa," he said during a visit to the Chobe Tree Reserve.


    I wonder what his carbon footprint is?
    Wealthy, priviliged, entitled, white aristocrat tells the rest of us to do what he says not do what he does.

    I'm surprised the freeloader isn't in Japan watching the Rugby. He'll probably make it there for the knockout stage.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    At last a voice of reason. Francois, Baker, Bridgen, Cash, Redwood. Remainer scum the lot of them.
  • I think Boris knows exactly what he is doing. There was a very good John Harris piece in the Gusrdian a few months ago on some voters having adopting shattering social norms in response to a loss of economic agency. If this debate boils down to " You can't say that " vs " I am and I will " then a certain sort of voter will feel Boris is empowering them.

    The problem is there is no evidence - so far - that it works because of counter mobilisation and well educated, urban, affluent voters start voting on culture not economics. Trump won but then got shellacked in the mid terms. Leave won but then the Corbyn surge in 2017.

    We'll see.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965

    Byronic said:

    OK, we're either waffling about the war, or repeating ourselves endlessly about Brexit. We're no better than the Arse of Commons.

    Time to do some real work. Lates.

    Enjoy the photo shoot.
    I'm sure Byronic is not the only PBer who sits around in his pants while posting.
    Pause

    LOOK, I FREQUENTLY WORK FROM HOME, OKAY???!!!

    oh, dammit (slinks away shamefaced...)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,695
    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    I am part of the 52%

    I do not accept No Deal

    There is no democratic will of the people in respect of No Deal.

    MPs shouldn't face death threats and Jester is wrong with his #Humbug response

    Xmas GE or not

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689
    edited September 2019
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.

    Edit: have just seen your edit:
    "Oh I wouldn’t worry. I don’t see what’s so bad about calling you by your name. If you’re going to bother people with unwanted emails and sign them off using your name, is it really so surprising when they call you by it?"

    What unwanted emails? I don't think I've ever emailed you, unless it was many years ago.

    Beside, even if I had, it's still really odd behaviour from you.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    edited September 2019
    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    Please can we stoo with this toxic language. I think Remain MPs have behaved abominably, but they are not traitors. All this talk of traitors, and coups, and fascists is deeply unhelpful. We do need to live together eventually.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,695
    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    Gammon??
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    Yes. This. We shall not rest until Francois and Bridgen are in the tumbrils on their way to their well-deserved fate.
  • HYUFD said:

    Prince Harry supports Greta Thunberg's climate change strikes

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49836292

    Mount Gammonetna due an eruption.
    Actually young Harry is criticising deniers, which is common sense, although he is happy to play his part in causing climate change freeloading his way around the world.

    There is a world of difference between people who deny the climate is changing and our impact on that which is clearly established and the rather alarmist views of exctinction rebellion of whom many people happily support without actually knowing what their platform is.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.
    I suggest you look at the things you put in quotation marks and compare them with what I said. When you notice they don’t match... you’re there!!

    Haha get over yourself, I doubt people would guess your real identity over the revelation of such a commonly held name!
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,135
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.

    Edit: have just seen your edit:
    "Oh I wouldn’t worry. I don’t see what’s so bad about calling you by your name. If you’re going to bother people with unwanted emails and sign them off using your name, is it really so surprising when they call you by it?"

    What unwanted emails? I don't think I've ever emailed you, unless it was many years ago.

    Beside, even if I had, it's still really odd behaviour from you.
    You did, and it was as boring then as this conversation is now
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Flanner said:

    geoffw said:

    Was Ireland allied with the axis powers? No, it was nominally neutral. But the condolences reveal something else.

    But what's that something? That de Valera was a Nazi sympathiser? That he was a boring, detail-obsessed, petty bureaucrat at heart, who simply thought diplomatic protocol should never be ignored? Or that over the previous x years, he'd actually struck up something of a friendship with the German ambassador (who went to the same church as Dev, unlike his British oppo never patronised Dev and was decidedly not a committed Nazi), realised the poor sod must be terrified about what was going to happen to him next, and went to see what help the poor chap and his family might need.
    That isn't really a reason to send condolences about Hitler. Nobody else in the world did it. De Valera wasn't a Nazi, but his ideological Anglophobia caused him to sympathize with evil regimes.

    A bit like some modern politicians.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    There's a lot of faux outrage from MPs who are surprised the public loathe them, either that or they're even more out of touch than I thought. Bercow is arguably the one man in Westminster despised more than anyone else by Brits, so a suitable fiigurehead for parliament.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978
    TOPPING said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    At last a voice of reason. Francois, Baker, Bridgen, Cash, Redwood. Remainer scum the lot of them.
    You missed out those other EU Manchurian candidates Philip Davis, Chope and Bone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    edited September 2019
    Brom said:

    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    There's a lot of faux outrage from MPs who are surprised the public loathe them, either that or they're even more out of touch than I thought. Bercow is arguably the one man in Westminster despised more than anyone else by Brits, so a suitable fiigurehead for parliament.
    Some of "the public" may or may not loathe some MPs but I'm going to have to believe that your post imagines that "the public" agrees wholeheartedly with you in loathing some MPs. Which it doesn't. So it is a bit meaningless using such a phrase.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    TOPPING said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    At last a voice of reason. Francois, Baker, Bridgen, Cash, Redwood. Remainer scum the lot of them.
    You missed out those other EU Manchurian candidates Philip Davis, Chope and Bone.
    Them too! I'm sure there are more. We shall seek them out.
  • Boris or Jezza Binary Choice


    Voters decide. Every vote for Tory Swinson is a vote for Jester/ Cummings.

    Ther only 2 possible outcomes.
    No, there are endless permutations all of which are different results with different outcomes in terms of policy. What you write is palpably and clearly false. Given most of the LDs votes are coming from the educated your simplistic reduction is unlikely to cut much ice.
    Only 2 PMs are possible

    LDs know that in their hearts

    LAB 24 LD 22 Tory PM

    LAB 34 LD 12 LAB PM PEOPLES VOTE
    Lol, no one's going to entrust the Stupid Communist with that kind of support!
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    TOPPING said:

    Brom said:

    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    There's a lot of faux outrage from MPs who are surprised the public loathe them, either that or they're even more out of touch than I thought. Bercow is arguably the one man in Westminster despised more than anyone else by Brits, so a suitable fiigurehead for parliament.
    "The public" may or may not loathe some MPs but I'm going to have to believe that your post imagines that "the public" agrees wholeheartedly with you in loathing some MPs. Which it doesn't. So it is a bit meaningless using such a phrase.
    Nope it's a fact. They loathe them. Polling shoes it, public sentiment shows it. Parliament are a disgrace and yes Cox is part of it but he was right to call them out. If only we could replace the whole lot of them.
  • Driving established members off the site away isn't something of which to be proud, or to celebrate.

    The whole point of discussion, like democracy, is that varying perspectives can be entertained and seen as legitimate. A degree of civility and empathy is required.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.
    I suggest you look at the things you put in quotation marks and compare them with what I said. When you notice they don’t match... you’re there!!

    Haha get over yourself, I doubt people would guess your real identity over the revelation of such a name!
    fuck off you little piece of shit.

    Right, I'm out of here.

    Have a good life everyone. iSam had achieved his objective.
    In the words of Martin Brennan, the Irish Alan Partridge Impersonator, who de hell is dat ?
    Do we need some moderator action here?

    I have not been following this discussion, but seems to have become unpleasant enough for Josias to walk.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,978
    Brom said:

    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    There's a lot of faux outrage from MPs who are surprised the public loathe them, either that or they're even more out of touch than I thought. Bercow is arguably the one man in Westminster despised more than anyone else by Brits, so a suitable fiigurehead for parliament.
    ...ooh no! Johnson as we speak is collecting that baton from Corbyn.
  • I think Boris knows exactly what he is doing. There was a very good John Harris piece in the Gusrdian a few months ago on some voters having adopting shattering social norms in response to a loss of economic agency. If this debate boils down to " You can't say that " vs " I am and I will " then a certain sort of voter will feel Boris is empowering them.

    The problem is there is no evidence - so far - that it works because of counter mobilisation and well educated, urban, affluent voters start voting on culture not economics. Trump won but then got shellacked in the mid terms. Leave won but then the Corbyn surge in 2017.

    We'll see.

    Affluent voters who choose Labour now are literally voting to get robbed. Not a lot of sane people do that in the privacy of the voting booth...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Brom said:

    TOPPING said:

    Brom said:

    nunuone said:

    Marco1 said:

    Hat did the Remainer MPs think would happen when they tried to go against the Public’s democratic will ?. A box of chocolates ?

    Exactly. They have brought them on themselves. Traitors is what they are.
    There's a lot of faux outrage from MPs who are surprised the public loathe them, either that or they're even more out of touch than I thought. Bercow is arguably the one man in Westminster despised more than anyone else by Brits, so a suitable fiigurehead for parliament.
    "The public" may or may not loathe some MPs but I'm going to have to believe that your post imagines that "the public" agrees wholeheartedly with you in loathing some MPs. Which it doesn't. So it is a bit meaningless using such a phrase.
    Nope it's a fact. They loathe them. Polling shoes it, public sentiment shows it. Parliament are a disgrace and yes Cox is part of it but he was right to call them out. If only we could replace the whole lot of them.
    We can!!

    The current make up of the House of Commons is entirely down to...drumroll please...The Public!!

    Which is why I query your assertion that The Public hates them all. Perhaps those who don't understand how representative democracy works but that is surely a minority in the general population and includes no one on PB.
  • Driving established members off the site away isn't something of which to be proud, or to celebrate.

    The whole point of discussion, like democracy, is that varying perspectives can be entertained and seen as legitimate. A degree of civility and empathy is required.

    :+1:

    Deeply ironic this is happening today of all days on PB.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965
    I don't know who it was who bought up Matthew Parris' Clacton-on-Sea article, but I remember that article unfondly and it really made me think less of Parris. He pointed to Clacton's decayed structure and aging population and argued that the Tories should abandon such towns. I was appalled by it - you don't do triage on your own people, it's the exact opposite of what politicians should do! - and lowered my view of Matthew considerably... :(
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    Your regular reminder to chill the f*ck out, everyone.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    viewcode said:

    I don't know who it was who bought up Matthew Parris' Clacton-on-Sea article, but I remember that article unfondly and it really made me think less of Parris. He pointed to Clacton's decayed structure and aging population and argued that the Tories should abandon such towns. I was appalled by it - you don't do triage on your own people, it's the exact opposite of what politicians should do! - and lowered my view of Matthew considerably... :(

    Parris has always been a snob and it comes across in his journalism. Tory party need to shift away from that sort of arrogance IMO.
  • Drutt said:

    Your regular reminder to chill the f*ck out, everyone.

    PB increasing turning into this...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STIvNjWobzA
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.
    I suggest you look at the things you put in quotation marks and compare them with what I said. When you notice they don’t match... you’re there!!

    Haha get over yourself, I doubt people would guess your real identity over the revelation of such a name!
    fuck off you little piece of shit.

    Right, I'm out of here.

    Have a good life everyone. iSam had achieved his objective.
    In the words of Martin Brennan, the Irish Alan Partridge Impersonator, who de hell is dat ?
    Do we need some moderator action here?

    I have not been following this discussion, but seems to have become unpleasant enough for Josias to walk.
    iSam has been banned.

    I make a further plea for Josias to return.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.
  • viewcode said:

    Oh, I'm sure you can overcome that difficulty if you try... :)

    Does the 'smiley face' in some way reduce the prickishness of your comment ;-)
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,850
    edited September 2019
    Glad Parliament is spending all day talking about the important issue of.....speaking a bit more nicely to each other.

    What was it Cox said yesterday about it being a "dead" parliament? Deader than the Dodo.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2019
    spudgfsh said:
    You could use eschatocracy, but because of modern connotations that doesn't sound right. The modern greek word makes a good fit - Heiroterocracy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596
    Byronic said:

    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.

    Bipolar and balanced are so close.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    America must be dreading this last 25 mins
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979
    Byronic said:

    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.

    How many people are actually paying attention to all of this nonsense in parliament? I reckon the vast majority of people are just getting on with their own lives.
  • kinabalu said:


    Presumably all those millions of working class leavers will be gleefully celebrating Labour policy over their 'cooked tea' and preparing to vote accordingly.

    Labours conference policy on immigration will take care of the millions of working class voters...don't you worry about that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited September 2019
    tlg86 said:

    Byronic said:

    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.

    How many people are actually paying attention to all of this nonsense in parliament? I reckon the vast majority of people are just getting on with their own lives.
    I would guess most just see it in passing, oh look they are back and arguing among themselves again and no progress on Brexit.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I hoped it would get under your skin

    Just stop misquoting me please, it just a waste of time

    Firstly, I'm not misquoting you.

    Secondly, the fact you'd remember my real name - something I've mentioned on here very rarely - and use it to 'get under my skin' when you are losing an argument is really odd behaviour. And a little worrying.

    What's the next step? full-on doxing?
    Oh I wouldn’t worry.

    But I wasn’t losing an argument, I was just trying to get rid of you.

    Stop misquoting me please 👍🏻
    Again, how have I misquoted you? You repeating it does not make it the case - in fact, it just makes you look a little desperate.

    If you feel need to 'get under someone's skin' by revealing their (not well known) real name on an Internet discussion, it may be time for you to put your keyboard down for a while and calm down. The next step is full-on doxing.
    I suggest you look at the things you put in quotation marks and compare them with what I said. When you notice they don’t match... you’re there!!

    Haha get over yourself, I doubt people would guess your real identity over the revelation of such a name!
    fuck off you little piece of shit.

    Right, I'm out of here.

    Have a good life everyone. iSam had achieved his objective.
    In the words of Martin Brennan, the Irish Alan Partridge Impersonator, who de hell is dat ?
    Do we need some moderator action here?

    I have not been following this discussion, but seems to have become unpleasant enough for Josias to walk.
    iSam has been banned.

    I make a further plea for Josias to return.
    Yes. Please return Josias.
  • kinabalu said:


    Presumably all those millions of working class leavers will be gleefully celebrating Labour policy over their 'cooked tea' and preparing to vote accordingly.

    Labours conference policy on immigration will take care of the millions of working class voters...don't you worry about that.
    Tory HQ must already be printing the posters on that one.
  • Byronic said:

    America must be dreading this last 25 mins

    Explanation?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    tlg86 said:

    Byronic said:

    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.

    How many people are actually paying attention to all of this nonsense in parliament? I reckon the vast majority of people are just getting on with their own lives.
    I would guess most just see it in passing, oh look they are back and arguing among themselves again and no progress on Brexit.
    The Arse of Commons is a grotesque embarrassment. All that sound and fury to get the prorogation reversed, and then with much fanfare they return to duty, and.... they just argue and whinge and hurl insults.

    Every time I think our politics has reached a new low, and can go no further, it manages to surprise on the downside. What a shedload of root vegetables they are.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    Byronic said:

    America must be dreading this last 25 mins

    Explanation?
    Rugby WC, England ahead 31 0
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    America must be dreading this last 25 mins

    Explanation?
    The rugger
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965
    Brom said:

    viewcode said:

    I don't know who it was who bought up Matthew Parris' Clacton-on-Sea article, but I remember that article unfondly and it really made me think less of Parris. He pointed to Clacton's decayed structure and aging population and argued that the Tories should abandon such towns. I was appalled by it - you don't do triage on your own people, it's the exact opposite of what politicians should do! - and lowered my view of Matthew considerably... :(

    Parris has always been a snob and it comes across in his journalism. Tory party need to shift away from that sort of arrogance IMO.
    Indeed. Twice.
  • Glad Parliament is spending all day talking about the important issue of.....speaking a bit more nicely to each other.

    What was it Cox said yesterday about it being a "dead" parliament? Deader than the Dodo.

    I note the Labour benches weren't as vocal about their Shadow Chancellor inciting the lynching of a female MP.

    Or when he said no Tory MP should be able to walk down the street unmolested.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    .
    Byronic said:

    tlg86 said:

    Byronic said:

    EVERYONE CALM DOWN

    In other news, I think we have to accept that there will be deaths now. Brexit is going the full-spectrum Vietnam.

    How many people are actually paying attention to all of this nonsense in parliament? I reckon the vast majority of people are just getting on with their own lives.
    I would guess most just see it in passing, oh look they are back and arguing among themselves again and no progress on Brexit.
    The Arse of Commons is a grotesque embarrassment. All that sound and fury to get the prorogation reversed, and then with much fanfare they return to duty, and.... they just argue and whinge and hurl insults.

    Every time I think our politics has reached a new low, and can go no further, it manages to surprise on the downside. What a shedload of root vegetables they are.
    And here we seem to need another lesson in civics.

    Let's start with an easy one - who do you suppose caused all those "root vegetables" to be there?
This discussion has been closed.