Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Buce

What's in the news?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

Evidently not given you think there's a good case for banning a group of people cos you don't like how they voted.

 

I accept their difference of opinion, I just don’t want to see a future they won’t be part of being decided by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
6 minutes ago, Buce said:

I accept their difference of opinion, I just don’t want to see a future they won’t be part of being decided by it. 

Should we also ban 20/30 year olds with terminal cancer from voting given it's a future they won't be part of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
2 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

Thatcher and Blair both had big majorities though so harsh to compare.

 

Any minority government will lose votes, I'd imagine it was exactly the same in the late 70's the last time we had a government with such a small majority in the house.

 

Just wait until next Tuesday and see the size of that defeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Thatcher and Blair both had big majorities though so harsh to compare.

 

Any minority government will lose votes, I'd imagine it was exactly the same in the late 70's the last time we had a government with such a small majority in the house.

 

 

Major ended up leading a minority govt, too, by 1996-97 - though he had won a small majority in 1992.

I can't remember how many parliamentary votes he lost, but it was all pretty chaotic in the end - Eurosceptic "bastards" (his description) frustrating his plans to the extent that he resigned as party leader and stood again.

 

I wonder what would be happening now if May had resisted the siren call of an election in 2017 to increase her majority and provide strong and stable government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Major ended up leading a minority govt, too, by 1996-97 - though he had won a small majority in 1992.

I can't remember how many parliamentary votes he lost, but it was all pretty chaotic in the end - Eurosceptic "bastards" (his description) frustrating his plans to the extent that he resigned as party leader and stood again.

 

I wonder what would be happening now if May had resisted the siren call of an election in 2017 to increase her majority and provide strong and stable government?

I fortunately had forgot about the end of Major.

 

Obviously it would all depend on the majority - the 60 odd ERG would be voting down her deal next week still, as would the remain revels I assume so she would have needed a Blair type majority to get it through.

 

Whether she would have got a better agreement with a stronger parliament behind her, we'll never know. I bet she couldn't imagine the bastards now would be people like Grieve though handcuffing her at every opportunity alongside the opposition.

 

When this is all over and the membership have picked the new leader him, the ones like him Soubry, Allen etc who have voted against government on almost every single piece of legislation should all be having the whip withdrawn.

 

To derail policy at every corner that you stood on in a manifesto is totally unacceptable. At least Ken Clarke didn't vote for the referendum, article 50 and told his constituency he wouldn't.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

I fortunately had forgot about the end of Major.

 

Obviously it would all depend on the majority - the 60 odd ERG would be voting down her deal next week still, as would the remain revels I assume so she would have needed a Blair type majority to get it through.

 

Whether she would have got a better agreement with a stronger parliament behind her, we'll never know. I bet she couldn't imagine the bastards now would be people like Greive though handcuffing her at every opportunity alongside the opposition.

 

When this is all over and the membership have picked the new leader him, the ones like him Soubry, Allen etc who have voted against government on almost every single piece of legislation should all be having the whip withdrawn.

 

To derail policy at every corner that you stood on in a manifesto is totally unacceptable. At least Ken Clarke didn't vote for the referendum, article 50 and told his constituency he wouldn't.

 

Knowing that she was destined to have dozens of dissatisfied backbenchers regardless, you can see the temptation of calling the 2017 election, when it looked as if she could get a 100+ majority. Maybe she'd worked out that she'd need one.

 

It's funny to think of the trajectories of those who made problems for Major. Redwood (who stood against him) just knighted, Bill Cash already knighted, Howard a former leader, "Quiet Man" IDS another former leader & former poverty guru cum poverty creator, Portillo a national treasure with his lovely train rides.... 

 

Meanwhile, having been a "bastard" to Kinnock, Smith, Blair & Brown, persistently calling for policy to be controlled by the membership, there's Corbyn as leader....now trying to frustrate the will of the party membership.

 

So, like the mirror image of Corbyn/Momentum at their worst, you want to end the idea of the Tory "broad church" and get rid of Soubry, Grieve & co?

There's a neatness to it, I suppose: the Tory Party becomes UKIP, while UKIP becomes the BNP. Not sure what becomes of the Tory Moderates? Form a centrist party with the Lib Dems and Labour Mods? Or just wipe everything from centre-left to centre-right off the spectrum and turn the country into a permanent war zone between Hard Left and Hard Right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Knowing that she was destined to have dozens of dissatisfied backbenchers regardless, you can see the temptation of calling the2017 election, when it looked as if she could get a 100+ majority. Maybe she'd worked out that she'd need one.

 

It's funny to think of the trajectories of those who made problems for Major. Redwood (who stood against him) just knighted, Bill Cash already knighted, Howard a former leader, "Quiet Man" IDS another former leader & former poverty guru cum poverty creator, Portillo a national treasure with his lovely train rides.... 

 

Meanwhile, having been a "bastard" to Kinnock, Smith, Blair & Brown, persistently calling for policy to be controlled by the membership, there's Corbyn as leader....now trying to frustrate the will of the party membership.

 

So, like the mirror image of Corbyn/Momentum at their worst, you want to end the idea of the Tory "broad church" and get rid of Soubry, Grieve & co?

There's a neatness to it, I suppose: the Tory Party becomes UKIP, while UKIP becomes the BNP. Not sure what becomes of the Tory Moderates? Form a centrist party with the Lib Dems and Labour Mods? Or just wipe everything from centre-left to centre-right off the spectrum and turn the country into a permanent war zone between Hard Left and Hard Right? :D

Not at all.

 

I'm not on about turning the Tories into UKIP - people on the liberal side of the party are welcome, plenty of remainers who advocate the Norway option aren't going to be kicked out, Ken Clarke has been fine aside from a couple of (possibly) whisky fuelled insults. Guys like Nick Boles have been voting against this but have been totally reasonable.

 

There are a handful though so intent on reversing the main policy of the government and that can't be accepted, Soubry has even retweeted Green and Labour party propaganda in trying to achieve a second referendum, I don't really know why that's been tolerated upto now, she's probably only still there as they are scared of making her a martyr.

 

Ironically she was a hate figure for the left a few years ago, one of the staunch advocates of benefit cuts etc - amazing how a reputation can change based on waiting to remain in the EU.

 

I do think if Labour MP's stand at the next election and then to block (or make difficult) the policies of rail nationalisation etc then action would be correct against them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

Labour finally have the solution, a "sensible" Brexit that brings the country together.

 

IMG_20190109_182517.jpg

 

Why has no one else thought of this?

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I agree that threats of violence alone should not be the basis for a decision. If it was just a few extremists making threats, it would be down to the police to deal with them. My concern about violence is about spontaneous and escalating violence by people angry at their decision being ignored. No doubt people like Robinson and the thugs on College Green would fan the flames - and elements on the Remain side could also get involved. Not only could that cause violence during the campaign, it could seriously exacerbate social division, alienation from democratic politics and could give the Far Right a big boost - effects lasting long after the referendum.

 

But, as per my previous post, I have other concerns about a second referendum: winning a vote in parliament; getting govt to legislate for it; getting EU agreement to a delay (probable but not certain); agreeing what will be on the ballot paper; lack of time (particularly with EU elections due in May); conducting a referendum campaign when a lot of voters have entrenched opinions and/or a low level of understanding and/or zero trust in any claims made by any politicians; the potential for much greater public division, public disorder, even violence and death during the campaign....and the distinct chance that a second referendum would produce another Leave vote or even No Deal.

 

Is No Deal unworkable? I agree that it would be disastrous. It would cause all sorts of logistical chaos, conflict, job losses, business closures, national isolation, loss of cooperative projects, lost tax revenue, slashed public spending and/or increased debt, economic volatility, border chaos, even potential deaths. But the country would carry on working. It would be a horrendous mess for a long time, but unworkable? To a lesser extent, Tory/Coalition austerity policies since 2010 have been disastrous, but workable. Those on the right would claim that Corbyn's plans are "unworkable". You seem to want to restrict democratic choices only to options that you find acceptable.....a rather, er, illiberal stance. More than half the public voted for Brexit and something close to half still support it, but most of them reject May's Deal. What option would you allow them on the ballot paper if not No Deal? It would cause outrage and alienation from the democracy if you just offered a choice between Remain and May's Deal. I suppose a Canada-type deal and checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea would be an option, as it's clear the EU would accept that....

 

No, I don't mean that the original referendum could have been 2-stage, as the outcome of negotiations couldn't have been anticipated in that way. I mean that it could have been clear beforehand that, if there was a Leave vote, then there'd be a second referendum once the deal was negotiated. I'm not pretending that I thought of this at the time - and, like you, I don't remember ANY party making such a suggestion. But, assuming that the Lib Dem policy for a second referendum was only introduced after the Leave vote, it does lack democratic credibility: "Oh shit! We didn't expect to lost, er, well, we now need a second vote on the final deal!". As I said before, if there had been a major shift in public opinion, there would have been a case for a second referendum. If Parliament cannot approve any deal and we're heading for No Deal, there's also a case - as that clearly wasn't what people voted for. They voted for a negotiated Brexit deal.

 

I appreciate that outside Lib Dem target seats (and maybe a couple of Green target seats), a vote for either party will not affect the result - due to our stupid election system (I support PR - STV in multi-member constituencies, one of the reasons I've voted Lib Dem a couple of times in the past). But, even without affecting any constituency results, a big switch of votes to smaller centre-left parties would affect internal thinking within Labour. In some seats, of course, there'd be a risk of handing seats to the Tories - but I'm in Leicester South, where Labour had a 20,000+ majority last time.

 

I hope the ultimate outcome is Remain, I really do. But I think anyone seeing a second referendum as a simple solution is dreaming - it's like wishing the clock could be turned back to produce a different referendum result. Can't happen.....and there are major risks in having a second referendum. Not as major as those of No Deal, by a long chalk, but serious enough. Probably enough of this extended dialogue for now, eh? :D

I've never said another referendum is a "simple solution". Even with a second referendum and a remain victory we would not see the end of euroscepticism, just look at the SNP after the referendum up there. It's a realistic solution to the immediate problem which is Britain exiting the EU at the end of March.

 

When I said "unworkable" I meant options that haven't been clearly defined and agreed upon by both parliament and the EU. If "no deal" was on the ballot it would need to be agreed by the government and the EU as to what that would actually mean. At the moment a "no deal" option would just be Project Fear 2.0 vs Unicorns. The same goes for any other position not pre-defined and pre-agreed.

 

If we have no referendum then we are either leaving with no deal, or we are leaving with a deal that has nearly as little support among leave voters as it does among remainers. 

 

There is no realistic prospect of remaining in the EU without a further referendum, if you hope for an outcome of Remain you have to support a referendum! It seems remainers are guilty of being just as unrealistic as leavers at times.

 

(Fair enough if you want to end the dialogue)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
6 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

Surely if Bercow put allows an amendment that the majority of MP's wanted, then he was doing the right thing? :dunno:

Nope, the idea of the speaker being impartial is that he is exactly that, he shouldn't be picking motions based on whether they will get through the house or not. That shouldn't even come into question. 

 

By the logic you are using a speaker could just choose any motion they wanted from the backbenches of a government that had a big majority.

 

This is why the clerks advised against this today and he invoked a speakers directive to overrule them. Something he has never done previously. 

 

A politically motivated decision, Labour backing him up unconditionally is shameful as well - they'll only realise the consequence of this when they are in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I've never said another referendum is a "simple solution". Even with a second referendum and a remain victory we would not see the end of euroscepticism, just look at the SNP after the referendum up there. It's a realistic solution to the immediate problem which is Britain exiting the EU at the end of March.

 

When I said "unworkable" I meant options that haven't been clearly defined and agreed upon by both parliament and the EU. If "no deal" was on the ballot it would need to be agreed by the government and the EU as to what that would actually mean. At the moment a "no deal" option would just be Project Fear 2.0 vs Unicorns. The same goes for any other position not pre-defined and pre-agreed.

 

If we have no referendum then we are either leaving with no deal, or we are leaving with a deal that has nearly as little support among leave voters as it does among remainers. 

 

There is no realistic prospect of remaining in the EU without a further referendum, if you hope for an outcome of Remain you have to support a referendum! It seems remainers are guilty of being just as unrealistic as leavers at times.

 

(Fair enough if you want to end the dialogue)

 

If you want any referendum to only include options that have been clearly defined, you'd have to exclude May's Deal, too, as that's vague as hell (as regards future EU-UK relations - only the Withdrawal Agreement / divorce settlement is clearly defined). :D

 

An awful lot of people are going to be happy, whatever the outcome, that's for sure.

 

I hope the public come to their senses and there's a mass shift in support towards Remain. In that case, I'll be delighted to support a referendum. As I will if there's no such shift but the only alternative is some disaster like No Deal - though I'll support a referendum and vote Remain with some trepidation, then, as regards social conflict before and after the referendum and the potential outcome.

 

That's enough for now, eh? I'm sure we'll debate again in coming weeks.

 

p.s. Where were you before signing up to Foxes Talk in 2017? Roaming the snow-clad wilds of Canada, shaking your antlers, inhaling and exhaling? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If you want any referendum to only include options that have been clearly defined, you'd have to exclude May's Deal, too, as that's vague as hell (as regards future EU-UK relations - only the Withdrawal Agreement / divorce settlement is clearly defined). :D

 

An awful lot of people are going to be happy, whatever the outcome, that's for sure.

 

I hope the public come to their senses and there's a mass shift in support towards Remain. In that case, I'll be delighted to support a referendum. As I will if there's no such shift but the only alternative is some disaster like No Deal - though I'll support a referendum and vote Remain with some trepidation, then, as regards social conflict before and after the referendum and the potential outcome.

 

That's enough for now, eh? I'm sure we'll debate again in coming weeks.

 

p.s. Where were you before signing up to Foxes Talk in 2017? Roaming the snow-clad wilds of Canada, shaking your antlers, inhaling and exhaling? ;)

 

My thoughts exactly.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

p.s. Where were you before signing up to Foxes Talk in 2017? Roaming the snow-clad wilds of Canada, shaking your antlers, inhaling and exhaling? ;)

Doesn't read like Moose or one of his characters. I seem to remember a Lib Dem supporting fox a few years back under a different name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

Doesn't read like Moose or one of his characters. I seem to remember a Lib Dem supporting fox a few years back under a different name. 

 

Moose is very clever at what he does, there’s no denying that, but his syntax has a certain pattern to it. There has been an effort to disguise it this time (particularly in the technology thread) but in long paragraphs he sometimes slips into that familiar Moose pattern. 

 

That said, I’m less certain than I usually am on this occasion, but it’s odd that Alf was thinking along the same lines. 

Edited by Buce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
19 minutes ago, bovril said:

Doesn't read like Moose or one of his characters. I seem to remember a Lib Dem supporting fox a few years back under a different name. 

Yeah this isn't Moose - this fella was on here a few years back under a different name with the same avatar.

 

Moose has always been an Cameron/Osborne type Tory or a hard-left leftie as well, if he's now posing as a liberal then he's expanded his repertoire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Yeah this isn't Moose - this fella was on here a few years back under a different name with the same avatar.

 

Moose has always been an Cameron/Osborne type Tory or a hard-left leftie as well, if he's now posing as a liberal then he's expanded his repertoire. 

ADK if I recall, he was/is a decent poster. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If you want any referendum to only include options that have been clearly defined, you'd have to exclude May's Deal, too, as that's vague as hell (as regards future EU-UK relations - only the Withdrawal Agreement / divorce settlement is clearly defined). :D

 

An awful lot of people are going to be happy, whatever the outcome, that's for sure.

 

I hope the public come to their senses and there's a mass shift in support towards Remain. In that case, I'll be delighted to support a referendum. As I will if there's no such shift but the only alternative is some disaster like No Deal - though I'll support a referendum and vote Remain with some trepidation, then, as regards social conflict before and after the referendum and the potential outcome.

 

That's enough for now, eh? I'm sure we'll debate again in coming weeks.

 

p.s. Where were you before signing up to Foxes Talk in 2017? Roaming the snow-clad wilds of Canada, shaking your antlers, inhaling and exhaling? ;)

I was ADK some time ago (different account on a dead email address). Got asked the same thing in 2017. I'd like to think I don't come across as a Moosebreath alt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I was ADK some time ago (different account on a dead email address). Got asked the same thing in 2017. I'd like to think I don't come across as a Moosebreath alt. 

 

Fair dos. The suggestion was more compliment than insult. I know some people had a problem with him, but I quite enjoyed my skirmishes with him. He argued well in his Tory guise (a bit less so with his lefty alter ego, I found). 

You have the same persistence and ability with a good rational argument. No insult intended.

 

Anyway, good to see our democratically-elected British Parliament taking back control from the unelected executive, today. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If you want any referendum to only include options that have been clearly defined, you'd have to exclude May's Deal, too, as that's vague as hell (as regards future EU-UK relations - only the Withdrawal Agreement / divorce settlement is clearly defined). :D

 

An awful lot of people are going to be happy, whatever the outcome, that's for sure.

 

I hope the public come to their senses and there's a mass shift in support towards Remain. In that case, I'll be delighted to support a referendum. As I will if there's no such shift but the only alternative is some disaster like No Deal - though I'll support a referendum and vote Remain with some trepidation, then, as regards social conflict before and after the referendum and the potential outcome.

 

That's enough for now, eh? I'm sure we'll debate again in coming weeks.

 

p.s. Where were you before signing up to Foxes Talk in 2017? Roaming the snow-clad wilds of Canada, shaking your antlers, inhaling and exhaling? ;)

Oye us Canadian lot are offended. Beavers mate, beavers are our animal of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...