Forum menu
So, is he actually your Grandad?
He is my grandad, and he is magic, but the whole veggie pacifist thing is an act. There’s nothing he likes more than a 3am ruck outside a kebab house while getting a large donner with chilli sauce
'MON THEN!
I'LL TAKE THE LOT O' YE!
Sorry… but only 8% of British voters could name Nigel Farage, and knew that he was an MEP and/or running to be an MEP, yet 13%(ish) voted for a party he set up
FTFY - The real figures sound a bit less impressive.
Still doesn't add up… I mean, is it not highly likely that most voters who voted for parties other than his own knew who he was, and that he was an MEP…? How could you have avoided knowing about him since 2014 onwards at the very least? The claim that only 8% of voters could name an MEP sounds like fanciful bull crap to me, when Farage is unavoidable in all media. Perhaps they all took his "taking a break from politics" line at face value and though he was no longer a paid MEP?
How many folk would know he was an MEP, not an MP?
How many MEPs have had as much coverage as him in the media (including the BBC)?
How many MEPs have had as much coverage as him in the media (including the BBC)?
None.
Hannon probably closest.
Anyway, do you really think that only 8% of voters knew that Farage is an MEP… on the run up to a referendum to elect MEPs… where he was the big news item solidly, selling his pitch for the election to elect MEPs… an election where he was standing to be a re-elected as an MEP? Really? Can 92% of voters be that unaware of something so basic, and intrinsic, to the mess that politics has become since 2014?
Do you think most voters know that you can't be both?
The march of Farage continues
Can 92% of voters be that unaware of something so basic, and intrinsic, to the mess that politics has become since 2014?
I would go with yes.
I would go with yes.
I would go with probably not and reckon its a bad question. However I wouldnt be willing to bet money on it though.
Aligning with a second referendum campaign led by architects of technocratic politics, advocating the overturning of a referendum, at a time when faith in Britain’s political class is at an all-time low, is a risk. And what about the genuine democratic concerns about the European Union? Those that prompted left-wing Remainers like Paul Mason to say the EU “is not and cannot become a democracy”?
They must surely exist in whatever demographic can be presumed to be the swing vote in a second referendum. How will Labour answer them? The plan seems to be to invoke the slogan ‘remain and reform.’ It is a vague answer for democratic deficits reflected in the fact that an enormous 92% of British voters couldn’t name an MEP going into these elections.”
I see that you are just waffling on with the same point and haven't bothered to countenance my accusation that Labour has helped radicalize the electorate - and that a counter radicalisation approach is needed if Labour wants to be part of the solution. Appeasing radicals is not how you deradicalise people .
In the absence now, daz, of a soft brexit option, what should be done?
The only reason we're here is because parliament failed to make a decision and pass the necessary legislation. We have a government which can't pass it's own bills. The traditional and constitutional solution to this problem is to elect a new government, which is what should happen. The parties can then campaign on what their preferred option is, be it a new referendum, no deal or whatever, and the people will decide accordingly. Once again though we're being held to ransom by a tory party which cares more about itself than the country.
and that a counter radicalisation approach is needed if Labour wants to be part of the solution.
Since when has offering more of the same been radical? Actually I"d more than happy with a coalition which involves the green party with it's policies on climate change, UBI, a 4 day week, proportional representation, abolishing nuclear weapons and using a different measure to GDP to measure economic progress. That would be truly radical, is that what you're talking about?
The only reason we’re here is because parliament failed to make a decision and pass the necessary legislation. We have a government which can’t pass it’s own bills. The traditional and constitutional solution to this problem is to elect a new government,
You appear to be conflating "parliament" and government," they're different things.
the people will decide accordingly.
Wait, so you're in favour of another referendum?
The only reason we’re here is because
Also, the only reason we're here is because Cameron tried to heal a schism in the Tory party, then people like Aaron Banks went "right then."
Wait, so you’re in favour of another referendum?
Given you're one of the knee-jerk responders to many of my posts you will know already that I've said I'm not particularly opposed to a new referendum. I don't think it'll solve the problem though, there's a huge chance it would be lost, and even if not it will only kick it down the road until Farage wins power. If one is to happen though there needs to be an election first, as we've already had two votes which failed, even though labour supported them.
Since when has offering more of the same been radical?
Just to highlight how daft this is, I'm going to use Nazis again for the lolz. Would you say that Nazis gassing Jews isn't radical because it's just more of the same?
Now ignore the last bit, because when I talk about radicalisation I'm not talking about policy. Policy does nothing in terms of describing where or why a group is radicalised.
Labour feeds radicalism because Brexit and their own political platform is based on group grievance, unfreezing (politically exploiting the loss of social connection) and group polarization (where members of this larger group must either commit to one faction and demonstrate their loyalty through further radicalization, or leave the group entirely.) Under Corbyn, Labour have demonstrated all of these traits.
Again, you and TJ are currently boring me because you're both framing this discussion purely within the constrains of material policies. The world doesn't work that way.
However, I do quite like the Greens and would be happy to see a somewhat restrained Green Lib Dem coalition, so we do have some common ground....somewhere.
Given you’re one of the knee-jerk responders to many of my posts
I'm surprised you've noticed seeing as you've ignored them all. I was starting to think you'd killfiled me.
you will know already that I’ve said I’m not particularly opposed to a new referendum. I don’t think it’ll solve the problem though,
No arguments here, I think it's a reckless idea.
Whatever could she be referring to? Which international institutions? Which structures? Nations working together how?
You appear to be conflating “parliament” and government,” they’re different things.
No he doesn't. It is a historically perfectly reasonable argument.
You appear to be conflating “parliament” and government,” they’re different things
But that's exactly what happened.
Parliament couldn't find consensus and the Government can't get its withdrawal bill through.
And its worth remembering that the Tories especially voted against everything.
Just to highlight how daft this is, I’m going to use Nazis again for the lolz. Would you say that Nazis gassing Jews isn’t radical because it’s just more of the same
How is that even a constructive analogy?
How is that even a constructive analogy?
Are one-line questions on rhetorical points intended to be a constructive contribution?
Whatever could she be referring to? Which international institutions?
Seeing as she's talking in the context of post-war US/UK cooperation, she's almost certainly talking about NATO and the UN. You really need to stop seeing everything through brexit tinted glasses.
Well, I'd add a few more to that list. What isn't spoken of enough is how crucial the US was in rebuilding Europe, helping to forge and support the institutions that help bind us together, to help to prevent us continuing to repeat past mistakes. Yes, they were crucial in the war itself, but even more crucial in the peace that followed. They should be thanked for this, and we should be reminded of it, far more often. Whoever was behind that speech needs commending for their timing, as does the Queen for delivering it.
[ not a royalist ]
Farage: This tactical voting is killing us, what can we do?
Banks: How about telling all the remainers to vote for parties who aren't a threat in their constituency?
Farage: Brilliant! Fancy a cheeky pint at the 'Spoons?
Well, the implosion of ChangeUK will help simplify things there a bit. Not as much as a clear policy from Labour would, obviously.
Well there it is. 😢
It's alright, as soon as we start threatening them with "no deal" they will open up their markets to us, without any need for us to pay more for drugs, or further fragment the NHS, or accept lower food and farming standards, because, don't forget … we hold all the cards … they need us more than we need them … RULE BRITANNIA !
[ oh, but don't ask how Ireland fits in with this speculative UK/USA trade deal ]
51st state but outside the dollar zone.
Airstrip One ...
Corbyn, are you prepared to pay for brexit with the NHS?
Shame on you.
Airstrip One …
I'm not sure what Melania's foof has to do with anything...
Corbyn, are you prepared to pay for brexit with the NHS?
Shame on you.
JFC. Maybe you could consider posting "shame on May / the Conservatives" before you jump to finger-pointing at someone who doesn't have legislative power to affect the impact of Brexit on the NHS?!?
We understand why so many Tories want Brexit, and those of us that have never voted for them don't expect them to be getting this right at all… if you really don't understand our frustration with the Labour leader, I'd be surprised. And this "not in power, so it doesn't matter" approach is just bullshit, I'm afraid. If you apply that to everything, then we don't actually need any opposition MPs at all… might well only have the "winning" party in Parliament, and everyone else goes back to their previous line of work for the next five years.
2016:
We send the EU £350m a week
Lets fund our NHS instead2019:
We send the EU £350m a week
Lets sell our NHS insteadAnyone have a bus?
JFC. Maybe you could consider posting “shame on May / the Conservatives” before you jump to finger-pointing at someone who doesn’t have legislative power to affect the impact of Brexit on the NHS?!
I expect the Tories to be ****s. I expect the leader of the labour party to stop them, not help them on their way.
2016:
We send the EU £350m a week
Lets fund our NHS instead2019:
We send the EU £350m a week
Lets sell our NHS insteadAnyone have a bus?
But aren't 20% of NHS health servcies to the tune of £20 billion + already contracted out already ? Does it make a difference if those contracts go to a British, other European or a US provider?
What about the other 80%?
The US of course has a great track record with regards to public healthcare.
I’m sure the nicotine-stained man-frog will turn his dodgy, illegal funding into some martyrdom issue and the morons will lap it up as poor plucky Nigel being bullied by those nasty foreigners in Brussels for standing up for Britain
Its quite possible 20% of NHS services are already outsourced, that doesnt mean we should welcome with open arms US companies who will immediately increase cost and reduce services to the public. As somebody who worked for a US owned company they are only interested in profit.
You need to make the link between Trump the money maker, Banks the insurance man, Farage the conduit for brexit and the sale of the NHS. It all adds up to money and not for the public who need the services.
IObreakingN:
Oh good.
Time to hold him to some account.
Maybe.
Sadly I think he shares followers with Sick! so in all likelihood they will think him a hero for stuffing it to the man in Europe....