In his speech today Johnson urged the public to “clap for bankers”, as apparently they make our NHS possible. Good luck with that one! “Their willingness to take risks with their own money will be crucial for our future success”. Their own money? Really? Why stop at bankers, let’s all clap for property speculators, tax avoiders, Russian oligarchs and dodgy accountants who set up offshore tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy while we’re at it. After all, without such people what on earth would the Conservative party do for funds. He also hinted that the rich were safe from future tax increases.
He is openly pissing on us and telling us it’s raining.
3 Likes
but as I am not allowed to say… there are plenty out there that when his piss falls, they simply open their mouths…
… probably after riding out the whole Cummings debacle, they are back in ‘we can fool (enough of) the people all of the time’ routine… which has proven possible… from Brexit onwards (Now before I get jumped on, this is not an attack on those who voted Brexit, but one on Boris, Gove etc who don’t really give a fuck one way or another about Brexit, only what it it can deliver to them personally… power and wealth) - yet convinced many that it was all about sovereignty and principles…
Did he say give a clap or the clap to bankers.
I can definitively get behind the second, as long as I’m not patient zero.
As I’ve repeatedly said, Remainers gave him the keys.
And a stonking majority more or less consistent with the seats that voted Leave.
How does that symbolism taste now? Simply symbolic, I’m guessing.
1 Like
Leave it out… I specifically mentioned this was about teh lack of principles seen in Gove and Boris… and yet they convinced many they had some…
And as you cant seem to count, please do consider the 'popular vote when making claims on majority… using the GE FPTP system as a marker is a consistently wrong - we all now you can get a killer majority on the house with less than 40% because of it, so its not a fair comparison… and if the Northern ‘traditional’ labour vote wants to go all anti immigration, well fuck em. 
(They do after all have form considering they contain the only places where the BNP had so many councillors) … so much for socialist enclaves hey!
Please consider the popular vote? What, you mean like give it a bit of respect? Well that’s funny, because there was a popular vote in 2016, de facto pure PR due to the number of choices on the ballot. No-one can accuse you of not giving that vote any consideration, but you’ve never given it any respect.
What I’ve done is quite uncontroversial. I’ve simply taken the constituency analysis of that public vote as to how it would break down in an FPTP vote. The analysis says 406 seats voted to Leave. That’s more than the 326 you need to form a majority.
It’s not rocket science. It’s subtraction. 650 seats minus 406 is 244 seats. It was never enough, and it was only because of a social media consensual hallucination with your political co-travellers that you ever thought it was.
It’s not consistent with the facts, and not cognisant of the fucking weariness the general public had accreted at this point with Remain whiners, three years of non-governance and an opposition just looking to prolong the agony and doing everything to demonstrate that it would (Benn’s Surrender Act, etc).
Remainers gave Johnson everything he needed to win.
1 Like
They didn’t have to convince anybody that they have any principles. All they had to do to win was persuade them that they would carry out the referendum result, albeit three years late.
Had Labour stood on that platform too we’d have had a proper election, with all the political factors like credibility, policy and manifestos taken into account by the voters. But they didn’t, so we had a one horse race for first place, and a political contest among the also-rans.
2 Likes
This is one of the reasons why the Labour Party as constituted can fucking do one. The other would be that the people in charge are bastard vipers who spent four years poisoning the well and fighting like rats in a fucking sack.
I wonder what Labour are left with now as a party. I reckon they’ve poisoned the well for generations. They’ve forgotten that while they were smearing Corbyn, they also indelibly stained the reputation of the party and in a huge amount of cases, themselves as credible politicians.
The second referendum u-turn was a giant fuck you to traditional voters. I doubt if they’ll ever get them back.
First up, you need to learn to differentiate between those expressing an opinion versus ‘respecting’ a result… respecting a result does not mean you simply shut up and remain silent on your opinion… would you if it the referendum had been on the death penalty and it had narrowly won… would that make you never mention it again?
Principles are not the luxury of the winner. If you disagree with something and there is a debate about it, its a basic ‘democratic’ right to argue ones case irrespective of what the 'majority may have voted… but its a concept you seem not to appreciate and think if you shout about ‘respecting a result’ enough ad infinitum, folks will given up… One can ‘respect’ a result, but it does not mean bending over and taking one sideways.
Secondly, you seem to be as bad a Murdoch tabloid and a Tory cabinet, that if you call those who dont agree with your ‘principles’ whiners and whingers often enough, it will somehow undermine their right to an opinion… what the fuck is that all about, hardly upholding democratic principles is it?
Anyway, as mentioned the parliamentary majority for the Torys is disproportionally reflective of FPTP and not representative of the very small majority, (that may now have shifted) that were in favour of Brexit… that was the very simple and obvious point. It was to be expected given the the numbers that voted brexit in the North. But to suggest that its therefore, all leavers fault and blaming them seems incredulous. Yes, parties were divided on Brexit and yes it became a single issue Election for many, BUT NOT all and if the electorate really did believe Brexit was more important than anything else and voted thus without any questioning of what that meant, then sorry they deserve what they get, and you cant hang that on folks who voted for their political principles even if it meant going against their View on Brexit. I voted for a Party that did NOT share the same view on Brexit as I would have liked.
But as I said, My initial point was that Boris and Gove managed to convince many that they should be voted for despite having fuck all principles, even on Brexit. Had the Brexit vote gone the other way, you can bet cunts like Boris would have eventually acknowledged that he ‘misjudged the EU’ as he never had any principles - folks either saw that and did not care (which is stupid), or did not see it (which is stupid)… that was the point.
That is the point… though, Traditional voters in many cases does not mean ‘those taht are aligned with party principles’, just that they always have voted that way, as seen by the ease in which they turned to Boris… You might not like it, but folks with principled socialist ideals would never simply vote Tory without batting an eye over an issue as complex as Brexit and the EU. Many on the left were torn between capitalist ideals of the EU and the viciousness of those advocating ‘tighter immigration’ and the blatant racism of Farage that were Brexit campaign drivers… it was always complex issue for many and why it was never going to as easy as you would like to think for a party to align one way or another… The devious skill of Cummings was that he managed to convince folks that they would be shitting on democracy if they voted for any party not fully behind the brexit vote… in effect shitting on democracy himself, which is a fucking big piece of irony many seemed to miss…
I was thinking traditional in the sense they expect the result of a vote to be upheld.
There were even more of them than voted Leave.
Behave, you know ‘traditional’ in this context is those areas or constituencies that have 'traditionally returned a labour MP…
This is what really boils my piss. Whatever people thought of him, Corbyn was riding a wave that might have genuinely changed politics in this country. We had a real chance of that, and his own party stymied it; that’s what grips my shit, it wasn’t even his opponents, it was his own fucking bastard cunting party. Nobody else.
Starmer was a huge part of that, which is why as far as I’m concerned he can do one.
I can fully appreciate that. But i would argue that the internal poison contributed to it and made it easier for the ‘traditional’ yet not-really-bought-into-Corbyn’s-socialist-principles’ voters to simply turn, but that it was Cummings master stroke as indicated above that eroded the mood from 2017.
The whole ‘anti-democratic’ cries, the push to convince folks that if Brexit was not done yesterday it would mean capitulation blah blah was deliberate… The Tories were on the ropes and Cummings went on the offensive (in all its meanings)… it was fine to spend 5 years in public consultation over HS2, but any more than 24 months of negotiations over an EU exit deal was pissing on their vote… as opposed to a sensible approach to such an important shift… as some are fond of saying, this was a generational policy shift, so why was it suddenly more important to do it quickly rather than doing it right? Because Cummings knew it was the only way to counter the common sense approach that Corbyn had advocated … force the parties hand to make a choice, when there was no need to had there not been a ‘rush’ to get brexit done…
Cummings plan was to convince those who voted Brexit, in those ‘traditional’ seats that speed was more important than getting a decent deal, that any party that might want you to vote on the nature of that deal was pissing on democracy. Where labour failed (they were now too busy fighting each other and dealing that anti-semitic nonsense to focus on what mattered), was that the message that the wise and sensible approach should be to get the best deal, and if the brexit voters had any concerns over the nature of the deal content they would get a chance to vote on it, never materialised. The second vote should always have been about giving brexiteers the ‘veto’ on any deal they felt was too much concession… I suspect things may have ben a bit different had they made that simple strategic shift
There is no decent deal to be had.
Your European friends want control. Brexit was predicated on taking that control back into UK democratic hands. Never the twain shall meet.
For the record, the EU demands right now are:-
- Control over fisheries
- Control over state aid
- Harmonisation over food and agriculture
- Their institution, the ECJ, to be the arbiter of any disputes involving any of the above.
How do you get a decent deal out of that?
Has anyone heard that it is okay to disagree?
1 Like
Defeatist nonsense and sounds like Farage speak… we will have to negotiate on any trade deal, just as we are negotiating on the actual Brexit deal…
There is a big difference between ‘control’ and opening position for negotiation - there will need to be agreement on many of these items in any trade deal… what you or I dont have a clue about is after all the bluster and political cockwaving is finished, what the compromises will be to get a deal done - its simple collaborative negotiation, which will follow the initial positional approach - all common in politics
Fisheries - The issue will be about any trade with EU IF UK is able to exploit its own waters beyond the limits normally set by EU, eg, size of trawlers, capacity, net sizes, catch sizes etc all of which impact on environment and costs of goods. In any trade deal, a compromise will have to be reached to enable a level competitive playing field… that was the purpose of the EU, and we will need to find agreement on this if we want to trade such commodities with the EU countries
Control over state aid… again its not control… its find a level that is acceptable to both parties to ensure reasonable equal competitive situations
Harmonization over food and agriculture - well we can argue about this one for ages, but the big one for me is standards - over quality and health and safety and as this often costs producers money to maintain and ensure certification, there will need to be agreement if we are to trade tarif free… again how is seeking agreement an issue?
The ECJ… again with any international deal its normal practice for companies to agree on which legislation will be the legal basis for a contract. I am not sure this is such a big issue as if a party breaks the agreement, they break the agreement and that would be need arbitration, or adjudication it has to happen in one court… again they need to agree and will do if left to get on with it rather than trying too hit some politically motivated deadline
Of course we can… the alternative is a trade with other countries… who will require agreement on teh SAME issues, yet perhaps less in our favour… e…g US food and agriculture rules which allow higher levels of pesticides, higher levels of GM crops, higher levels of hormones and antibiotics in live stock, lower hygiene standards in the processing… etc… and importantly less packaging information on the above so consumers dont have all the information.
Basically we will need to compromise on ALL this aspects whoever we want to trade with… the only way we control anything completely is if we trade with no one, or if we have goods no one else can provide, which we dont… You might not like the EU, but on trade, membership was by far these simplest for majority of our businesses trading with EU nations…
Long post. Didn’t read all of it. Didn’t have to. Don’t have to write a novel in response.
Canada didn’t have to make any of these trade-offs. No country outside the EU is going to demand sovereign control over the UK. They just want favourable trading conditions.
Your points are demonstrably nonsense if you’re not wearing the “dogma” hat you seem to be.
Short post, read it all, full of nonsense …behave, (and just because your attention span is so short, you dont need to go all patronising twat again) … all I have argued IS favourable trading conditions, which you seem to believe means ‘CONTROL’ - ANY trade agreement which is after the issue to be resolved with ANY country will be about creating favourable conditions that both parties can live with and it will involve compromise… dont know what dictionary you use but last time I looked Control was not defined as negotiate, compromise and agree… Remember, when Boris signs a trade deal withe the US, with all the conditions that the US INSIST on, will you call that CONTROL as well?
You’re not my dad. Please stop telling me how to behave, or I’ll set @unionhotel on you.
The only point of agreement I’ll ever have with @Furball is that you need an editor.