[Closed] Who is the best politician in the UK?

No I was genuinely interested what you saw as the "organisation", the broad movement I am aware of ...

In didn't say anything at all about an organisation, you are the first to mention it.

I said :

There are lots of very sensible arguments in favour of UK withdrawal from the EU. Unfortunately as long as a party of fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists, has a monopoly over the issue, they are never heard.

And :

Well I would like to think that if there was a debate over continued EU membership that the left would have a chance to make the case against. Unfortunately the rantings of right-wing bigots appears to drown out all sensible debate on the issue.

The point I was making which you might have forgotten was that I consider UKIP to be a hindrance in making the case against EU membership. I think people are more likely to support EU membership if it is UKIP who is making the case against. For that reason I don't think Farage has been effective in the stated aim of UKIP.

And yet you proposed Clegg....

I also proposed Tony Blair because he won three general elections. It depends what you define as "best" politician.

Not sure our system really showcases great politicians, great survivors maybe, but can't currently think of any in the Bismarck sense - politics as the art of the possible.
It's one thing to command a huge majority, opposition gone to sht, and pass bills in an echo chamber. That's Alex Ferguson MP. Great politicians are more like Brian Clough MP - forge difficult, tricky legislature in a hostile environment. Compromise and accept the next best if it means getting things done.

Initially I was expecting the Yes to win but as we got closer to the day I realised that it was no longer likely*. But I was surprised that the eventual result showed a clear and unambiguous rejection by a 10% margin.

Well they started the campaign 30% behind with half the votes of the opposition given this ,and your opposition to independence, I am not sure why this scenario led you to expect them to win. IMHO not even the yes expected to win they just hoped they would.
It was not a clear an unambiguous result as you claim as a 5 % swing to reverse it is not this. If it were then there would be no talk of further referendum because all would accept they were "well beaten with no chance".
* When was it likely? Bar the one poll [ which was still not a majority if you included undecided] they were never ahead in the polls 😯
You dont usually resort to "spin" in posts and you are usually far more incisive in your observations. I am not sure what it is about the independence debate that does this to folk tbh.

On Topic - to me a great politicians is one who has principles and stands up for those principles no matter the personal consequences and does not compromise them or sell out

there a small number on both sides of the house who spring to mind

David Davis
Heseltine - nearly anyway
Denis Skinner

I would take one of those over a turncoat like Blair or a PR man like Dave.
Problem is none of them got real power

after an anti-Scottish backlash when a minority Labour government is propped up by the SNP.

Yay Nick! And he skillfully used the opportunity to destroy his party's membership and voter base.

Seems unlikely he'll get my vote this time.

I still think I'd buy him a pint though; he just seems sound.

[i]What next one ? The referendum has been held. There would only been one if the result had been yes, I can't see why there needs to be more than one because the result was no.[/i]

The whole point of the SNP is Independence from the UK. Until the answer is "yes" presumably the campaigning never stops?

Edit: Sarah Champion

Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Alistair Darling, Boris. However forget Salmond, instead I'll give you Gerry Adams.

Personally before we get all excited about the SNP, UKIP or the Greens gains, we need to wait until the results come in. There are some seats predicted for gains, where to me the numbers just don't add up for us seeing big swings.

Salmond got his bluff called by Cameron, and then lost. Cameron > Salmond, by a huge margin.

Nope. In terms of achievement, Salmon took the SNP from nowhere and nearly got independence (and they'll probably get that in the next few years). The whole political landscape of Scotland has changed.

Cameron failed to win a majority and managed a coalition for 5 years, political landscape is pretty much unchanged 5 years later.

wrecker - Member

Yep, if there is a lab/SNP partnership I reckon that it's odds on for another referendum and the Scots leaving the UK.

I think it's basically in the hands of the english, this. A good working partnership between the SNP and Labour and some recognition that hey, we're still part of the UK, could make a massive positive difference.

But then the current situation of having the prime minister talking about not "letting" us have any power in our own parliament doesn't inspire confidence. For people who're genuinely unionists it should be a massive opportunity but most seem to be trying to take short term advantage despite the harm it does. Hey, why don't we demonise and marginalize scottish voters to try and win a couple of seats in England? Good idea! (does marginalize have a z in it? Does demonise? Ah well)

(though I suppose, back on topic, this says things about "best politicians"- Cameron's been very succesful on this short-term "Labour in Salmond's pocket" "Keep these people out" line which helps him for this election. The job is to win, right? But his successes today go against what's supposed to be at the core of his party, it's actively anti-unionist. And if I was Welsh I think I'd get quite annoyed every time people talk about EVEL re scottish devolved issues. So big and small picture contradictions. No matter where you stand, Miliband's been terrible on this subject though.)

Well they started the campaign 30% behind with half the votes of the opposition given this ,and your opposition to independence, I am not sure why this scenario led you to expect them to win.

You were well aware at the time of the referendum campaign that I expected the Yes vote to win Junkyard. I know this because I remember you commenting on your surprise that I could be both opposed to "independence" and believe that the Yes vote would win, as you have again now.

I completely failed at the time to understand why according to you my "opposition to independence" must mean that I thought all Scots would agree with me, and still do.

Here's another shocking revelation for you Junkyard - despite me supporting the Green Party this general election I will be surprised if they manage to get more than 5% of the vote. Tragically I have to accept that sometimes not everyone agrees with me.

And it is [u]precisely[/u] because "they started the campaign 30% behind" but very quickly ate away at the No vote as the debate kicked off that I initially thought they would probably eventually win on the day.

A 10% win is a clear and unambiguous result in any election, whatever you might say.

.

You dont usually resort to "spin" in posts and you are usually far more incisive in your observations.

You do like to adopt a personal and patronising tone when I say something which you don't agree with Junkyard. Just disagree with me and make your point ffs, no need to add some pointless bollocks about "you don't usually" and "you are usually far more", I'm not really interested in your opinion of what I usually do.

nearly got independence (and they'll probably get that in the next few years).

As been quoted above he didn't it simply wasn't that close. 28 of the 32 council areas voted "No". So what's going to change in a few years? It'll still be the majority of the people who voted last time voting a second time, and I can't see many people changing their vote.

I'm liking the choie of venue for the SNP manifesto launch. It's at Ratho climbing centre no less.

It'll still be the majority of the people who voted last time voting a second time, and I can't see many people changing their vote.

Oh I can.

[i]You do like to adopt a personal and patronising tone [/i]

Mr pot? This is Mr Kettle...

You, JY, THM, Zulu, you're all as bad as each other in this regard.

Z-11 patronising ? You must have a different definition of the word nick, Z-11 is a lot of things but he's not even vaguely patronising imo.

Keith Vaz.

One might, for example, find Blair odious, or Mandleson reprehensible, but neither has the Teflon coating of this dishonest and devious bastard.

Here's his latest in shrugging off 'involvement' in shady shit: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/17/labour-solidarity-establishment-protection-of-lord-janner-goes-back-24-years/

Who said Jim Murphy?

If he is in reality an SNP plant then he is without doubt very successful. Judged by any other standards he's an unmitigated disaster.

On Topic - to me a great politicians is one who has principles and stands up for those principles no matter the personal consequences and does not compromise them or sell out

I thoroughly disagree - I would offer you the eventual (and hard won) success of the Northern Ireland peace process as the perfect example of why great politicians [b]must[/b] be willing to set aside principles and compromise in order to attain a greater good.

I like what I'm hearing from 'the sturge'. Maybe that's my Scottish half talking.

I thoroughly disagree - I would offer you the eventual (and hard won) success of the Northern Ireland peace process as the perfect example of why great politicians must be willing to set aside principles and compromise in order to attain a greater good.

I would say that is an example of politicians standing by high principles and putting aside ideology to achieve peace. IMO the difference between principles and ideology is frequently confused especially when used to praise dogmatic uncompromising politicians.

Hmm, "we do not negotiate with terrorists"

Principle or ideology?

Same goes for decommissioning etc.

I think it's a false distinction - there were a huge number of very distasteful compromises and sell outs made in order to achieve peace

Good question that... Could be either couldn't it, or equally could be empty buzzwordery. Maybe you can look back and say it was most likely principles or empty words, since people are less likely to go against ideology?

There was a strong belief, an ideological commitment, that the IRA could be defeated through purely military means and that a political or negotiated solution was not necessary.

That was the position of all UK governments from the start of The Troubles until John Major became PM.

We need to get past ideology; that's so last century and start understanding the data. Unfortunately both jurno's and the general public are too stupid to understand. Rather than being derided if your initial policy doesn't deliver the results expected, you should actual be congratulated on reviewing it and altering it. Vince Cable tried to argue exactly that point early on in the coalition but the stupid jurno just wanted a Yes or No answer, when the reality is far more nuanced.

You do like to adopt a personal and patronising tone when I say something which you don't agree with Junkyard.

nd it is precisely because "they started the campaign 30% behind" but very quickly ate away at the No vote as the debate kicked off that I initially thought they would probably eventually win on the day.

I see no reason why a yes voter would think yes would win never mind why a NO voter would think they would win. Its a view at odds with all [ bar one] of the polls.

I completely failed at the time to understand why according to you my "opposition to independence" must mean that I thought all Scots would agree with me, and still do.

A 10% win is a clear and unambiguous result in any election, whatever you might say.

It was not a clear an unambiguous result as you claim as a 5 % swing to reverse it is not this. If it were then there would be no talk of further referendum because all would accept they were "well beaten with no chance".

I agree john Major does not get enough credit for the Peace process but i am not sure he did put aside his principles or not.

Its also true that both sides paid a high price in terms of fudging their principles. It was a price worth paying and an interesting side bar point.

That is not what happened intially

I said, as you correctly quoted me : [i]"as the debate kicked off that I initially thought they would probably eventually win on the day"[/i].

The referendum campaign was a 16 week affair starting on May 30. By that time as your graph shows the Yes camp had been steadily increasing their support for several months, as a consequence I thought they would probably win on the day.

I posted on this forum that I thought the Yes camp would probably win on the day - I can't be arsed to do a search of what I said on here a year ago. But you carry on thinking that for some weird reason I'm lying and that I never expected the Yes camp to win, it really isn't that important.

I am questioning why you think that not whether you think it.
I have no idea why you have failed to get that and started accusing me of accusing you of lying

I'm liking the choie of venue for the SNP manifesto launch. It's at Ratho climbing centre no less

I've changed my mind it has to be Boris.

His anti SNP speech contained this gem...

[b][i]...and anybody thinking of voting Ukip should realise that by putting in a Labour/SNP alliance they are going to turn the UK into the Former UK, and their party will have to be called FUKIP.[/i][/b]

Damn, but he's a clever lad. 🙂

I've changed my mind it has to be Boris.

His anti SNP speech contained this gem...

...and anybody thinking of voting Ukip should realise that by putting in a Labour/SNP alliance they are going to turn the UK into the Former UK, and their party will have to be called FUKIP.

Damn, but he's a clever lad.

And he's been demonstrating the benefits of his public school education with a raft of classical metaphors to describe Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, we had King Herod, Lady Macbeth and the scorpion from Aesop's fables. Not bad from the Tory's very own Falstaff!

Northwind

I've never seen a single sensible argument against future referendums on the matter. "We wouldn't have had another if you'd voted Yes" this is just a chewbacca defence; the result of a Yes vote would have made a rerun referendum impossible.

I think the point that it would be impossible after a 'yes'is the argument against. People change their mind on these matters regularly, hence it seems very unfair that the Yes supporters can have as many chances as they like to win a referendum...yet as you acknowledge if opinions were to turn back the other way at a future stage there would be no way of going back. Salmond told us this was a once in a lifetime opportunity, it was, the country overwhelmingly voted against.

As Earnie pointed out its not democracy at all, as it appears that what the people of Scotland want only matters if they are pro independence.

tpbiker - Member
...Salmond told us this was a once in a lifetime opportunity, it was, the country overwhelmingly voted against...

Doesn't look "overwhelmingly against" from where I'm standing.

As for independence being a permanent thing, I'd be interested if you could provide a list of former parts of the empire that have wanted to return to Westminster governance after their independence.

Two points
1. If there was independence unionist would not disappear over night so the issue would not be put to bed. I suspect we would have the same scenario but reversed ie Unionist parties and campaigns.

2. A 5 % swing of the population is all that is required and this is not overwhelming. Obviously it was a clear result but. IMHO, at least 2/3 is required for it to be truly overwhelming.

I see no way of calling a 5 % swing "overwhelming". Overwhelming, to me , suggests no chance of changing the outcome[ in the future] and that is stretching it.

Salmond told us this was a once in a lifetime opportunity

And if we must quote him can we at least be aware of what he said. Its not like he even stated it as a fact.

Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, [b]perhaps [/b]even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."

Damn, but he's a clever lad.

Except that the joke isn't really that funny, is it?

Here's something both clever and very funny :

It made everyone, including the political adversaries which it was aimed at, laugh, uncontrollably. It makes me laugh every time I see it until I have to start wiping tears from my eyes.

And unlike Johnson William Hague is able to combine highly amusing wit with some serious politics. I don't like Hague, he's on the right of the party, but I do recognize that he has been a serious asset and effective politician for the Tories.

Johnson's value appears to be based purely on the fact that he's a bit of a clown and has amusing unkempt very blonde hair.

tpbiker - Member

As Earnie pointed out its not democracy at all, as it appears that what the people of Scotland want only matters if they are pro independence.

You seem a little confused. We had the referendum, the result was a no vote and so we stayed in the UK, QED, what the people of Scotland wanted [i]does[/i] matter. Because, as I say, democracy.

What would be undemocractic is saying "you voted on a thing once, so now it's decided forever" So weirdly you seem to be arguing that the proven democratic vote is undemocratic, and an undemocratic response would be democratic.

tpbiker - Member

yet as you acknowledge if opinions were to turn back the other way at a future stage there would be no way of going back.

I said no such thing. What I said was, you couldn't simply rerun the referendum. But that doesn't mean there'd be no way back- just that the route back isn't the same as the route there.

D'oh! Wrong political thread ... arrghhh ... you lot .... 😡