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
 Share
yorkie1999

Also in the news

By yorkie1999, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Completely disagree - Brexit shouldnt  be about Trumpian economic protectionism - it should be about wider trade and reduction of tariffs from both sides if possible in the long term.

 

The comparisons made between Brexit and Trump are often very lazy and purely based on Remain voters perceptions that the same sort of people voted for both. 

 

They're based very accurately on the fact they're both appallingly stupid decisions voted for en masse by people buying populist rhetoric from self serving pricks because they're generally disenfranchised with modern politics in a situation that's been festering away solidly since the banking crisis ****ed the economy. 

 

Oh and they're probably both in the best interests of Russia... 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

This survey, showing a loss of faith in UK democracy, is unsurprising but a cause for concern: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/08/uk-more-willing-embrace-authoritarianism-warn-hansard-audit-political-engagement

 

"The UK public is increasingly disenchanted with MPs and government and ever more willing to welcome the idea of authoritarian leaders who would ignore parliament, a long-running survey of attitudes to politics has shown. Amid the Brexit chaos, overall public faith in the political system has reached a nadir not previously seen in the 16-year history of the Hansard Society’s audit of political engagement, lower even than at the depths of the crisis over MPs’ expenses. Almost three-quarters of those asked said the system of governance needed significant improvement, and other attitudes emerged that “challenge core tenets of our democracy”, the audit’s authors stated.The study, compiled annually by the democracy charity, found that when people were asked whether “Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules”, 54% agreed and only 23% said no".

 

"In all, 42% of respondents agreed with the idea that many national problems could be dealt with more effectively “if the government didn’t have to worry so much about votes in parliament”. Ruth Fox, the director of the Hansard Society, said scepticism about politics, a feeling that the system was rigged and a willingness to consider radical solutions was a potentially dangerous combination. She said: “Preferring a strong leader who is willing to break the rules, or thinking that the government should be able to tackle the country’s problems without worrying about the approval of parliament, would challenge core tenets of our democracy. “The public feel strongly that the system of governing favours the rich and powerful and that political parties don’t care about the average person. And people are not confident that politicians act in the public interest. Unless something changes, this is a potentially toxic recipe for the future of British politics.”

 

"Hope Not Hate, which monitors extreme groups, said the suspicion of politicians, if coupled with a post-Brexit economic downturn, would be “fertile ground for a far-right populist surge”. Rosie Carter, a senior policy officer with the group, said: “We are facing a crisis of political mistrust. And when people do not trust traditional political systems, they look elsewhere. That’s when support for political extremes grows.” The report was based on face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of more than 1,000 people, who were asked a mix of new questions and those asked each year. The proportion who said the system of governing needed “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of improvement rose by five points from 2018, to 77%, the highest level recorded. The survey found that 25% of the public had confidence in MPs’ handling of Brexit, and overall they were more likely to have faith in the military, judges, civil servants, TV broadcasters, councils, unions and banks to “act in the public interest”. Fifty-six per cent of respondents said they believed Britain was in decline, while 63% agreed that “Britain’s system of government is rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful”.The overall picture was one of people engaged in politics but with little faith in their ability to shape matters, with 47% saying they felt they had no influence at all over the national direction. One of the few areas where the populist mood has subsided is backing for referendums. Before the Brexit vote, 76% of people supported more issues being put to the public in referendums, but this has now slumped to 55%, three points lower than 2018".

What the whole Brexit farce demonstrates is that politicians of all colours do not act in the interest of the general population, mainly for themselves and maybe - at best - for their constituency, when it serves them politically. Such as David Lammy on the recent Question Time.

It's a parliamentary crisis and hopefully one that sees parliament emerging even stronger in the years and decades to come.

Trust and connection to the people needs to be rebuilt.

But what it also illustrates, and I'm saying this in the defense of politicians, that there has never been another country leaving or trying to leave the EU before. So everything happening now, everything that's happened before is based on completely new and unproven grounds. It's an experiment, and I do hope there will be a solution sooner than later - it can't carry on for another two, three or five years.

You waste money, energy and time that should be focusing on other issues, be it on an international, national, regional or local level.

 

In addition to that, quoting an organization such as Hope Not Hate instantly provokes a reaction of distrust. These people have been involved in campaigns smearing individuals and carry their own leftist agenda:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/hope-not-hate-stuck-in-a-quagmire-of-leftie-groupthink/

It's overly simplistic to claim that there's a surge in far-right populism from the perspective of an entity that is placed on the left. Everything to the right of it is unfortunately automatically labeled "far-right", when in fact the rise is probably simply more conservative or even just mildly more conservative.

But I suppose catchphrases sell better.

 

Also, no mention of the rise of far-left groups or separatists, who account for most of the violence in Europe:

Quote

Statistics collected by the EU law enforcement agency Europol show EU states reported 33 attacks committed or attempted by people identified as “jihadis” in 2017, but only five among people classified as right-wing. The largest number of terrorist incidents, 137, reported that year were actually carried out by regional separatist groups — like Northern Irish groups in the UK or Basque separatists in France — and there were 24 incidents involving far-left groups.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/generation-identity-europe-christchurch-attack

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MattP said:

There is clearly a massive space in the political spectrum out there for a combination of left wing economics and right wing social policies though - Matthew Goodwin had been writing about it for some time.

 

Whoever lead that would have to come from outside Westminster though. 

Isn’t that called National Socialism?

 

I think it’s all already been tried :ph34r:.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted

Brexiter MPs pursue fresh bid to oust May by indicative votes

Backbenchers submitting letters to 1922 Committee chair in bid to block further delay

 

A fresh attempt to oust Theresa May is under way over her decision to enter talks with Jeremy Corbyn, with leading Brexiter MPs plotting ways to force a vote showing the majority of the party has lost confidence in her.

Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee, has rebuffed calls from backbenchers for an indicative vote on May’s future, as the prime minister saw off a no-confidence vote in December last year and cannot be challenged again within 12 months.

However, backbench MPs are submitting a fresh batch of no-confidence letters to him in the hope the number will become so great he has to act.

After meeting with the prime minister on Monday, Brady said there was “no intention of proceeding” with any informal vote of confidence.

 

It is understood the 1922 Committee debated the issue for almost an hour last week and was split over whether it should go ahead. Some Conservative MPs were under the impression Brady had ruled it out only “for now” and would be forced to give in to pressure to hold a vote if he received a deluge of letters.

One MP said Brady had told them he would pass on the concerns of colleagues to May herself and, of the letters, “she won’t know the names, but she will know the number” who were unhappy with her. Another Conservative MP said that if Brady would not allow an indicative vote then “we will find a way around him”.

Mark Francois, the vice-chair of the hardline European Research Group, called for an indicative ballot to take place this week as he said May had lost the confidence of her MPs.

In a letter to Brady, Francois said: “If my colleagues were to demonstrate prior to Wednesday evening, in an indicative ballot say at 3pm, prior to the meeting of the 1922 Committee, that they have lost confidence in the prime minister I believe that under those circumstances it is extremely unlikely that the European council would grant an extension and we would, therefore, leave the European Union on Friday night, as so many Tory MPs so obviously want. Our future is therefore literally in the hands of 313 Tory MPs.”

 

“I believe May has been a failure as leader of our party, which she now threatens to destroy. Hers is a classic example of hubris – and after hubris, comes nemesis.”

He later told the Guardian: “When we had an official vote of confidence prior to Christmas and 117 colleagues voted against the PM. We did not know at that time that she would be getting into bed with a Marxist with the prospect of a customs union and breaching the 2017 manifesto. Had we known that, I’m sure the vote against would be far higher. Now that ‘everything has changed’, I believe it is appropriate that colleagues should be asked again.”

The Tory MP James Duddridge said: “We shouldn’t be bound by the party rules that we cannot have a vote for 12 months. If an indicative vote is good enough for the Commons, it is good enough for the internal party rules. Prior to that, Graham Brady was already collecting signatures. There were some people encouraging others to put in additional signatures.”

Andrew Bridgen, another Conservative MP who is against May’s deal, first brought up the idea a week ago, saying an “indicative vote” should be considered. “It seems to be all the rage, so why not?” he said.

May has signalled she will step down as the prime minister if her Brexit deal passes but it still shows no sign of going through parliament.

Over the last week, a supportive letter has been circulating among MPs expressing backing for May opening talks with Labour, but it is not clear how many have signed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Mark Francois is gonna milk this 15 minutes of fame for all its worth.  How long before some removes his mask to reveal a massive bellend?

He's as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle, as my Grandfather would say. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Mark Francois is gonna milk this 15 minutes of fame for all its worth.  How long before some removes his mask to reveal a massive bellend?

 

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

He's as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle, as my Grandfather would say. 

 

The way he comes out with the macho 'I'm ex-Army' bullshit.

 

He was a 'weekend warrior' with the Territorials. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
On 07/04/2019 at 07:14, the fox said:

Here's a misconception.

 

-Napoleon was short.

 

Many say that it is a misconception and Napoleon wasn't really that short and that view about him stems from the deferences between the French and English measuring systems.

 

"If Napoleon was 5 foot 2 inches in the French measurement system, he would have been 5 foot 6 inches (1.68 metres) in the British system. This would make him an average- sized man for his time. In which case,"

 

He wasn't really that short. And there are stories about his guards being so big that they highlighted his stature even more.

 

 

-Albert Einstein failed math

 

which is incorrect do to the different grading system.

 

 

-Bats are bind.

 

Not true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree with this... also...

 

I did not fail university, i passed with a different grading system

 

It is not 3 inches long, it is 9 and a half in Oz measurements and standing next to Wes just highlights it.

 

Drop bears are not a joke!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Finnegan said:

They're based very accurately on the fact they're both appallingly stupid decisions voted for en masse by people buying populist rhetoric from self serving pricks because they're generally disenfranchised with modern politics in a situation that's been festering away solidly since the banking crisis ****ed the economy. 

 

Oh and they're probably both in the best interests of Russia... 

Opinion is not fact.

Brexit was certainly a controversial decision but none of us know what the future holds, for Britain or the European Union - in ten years time you might be taking your orders from Marine and Victor rather than Angela and Manu and then you'll see it as anything but stupid, that's before we even get onto the what the crisis in the Eurozone could bring or the effect unpayable debts will have from some of the sourth nations.

This European BBC/Guardian groupthink about Trump has got worse and worse as well, can anyone really say with any certainly electing him over Clinton was a stupid decision? Of course you can't, the American growth rate has remained stable, unemployment is extremely low and for the first time in years  the country isn't carpet bombing the middle east (we would probably be in a proxy war in Syria now had the vote gone the other way) - I don't shy away from Trump demeaning his role.and the often deleterious way he acts, he's made the office look ridiculous, but claiming his election is a stupid decision at this stage lacks any critical thinking or analysis whatsoever about the current situation or the potential alternative.

As for Russia, I'm sure they did want both but why would you care? You make a decision based on what you think is best, I can guarantee you Russia will want Labour and Jeremy Corbyn to win our next election (let's send them a sample and ask them shall we?!) as well but I wouldn't expect a Remain voing left-winger to go out and vote Conservative because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, surrifox said:

Julian Assange arrested after leaving Ecuadorean Embassy 

Looked like Tolstoy when he departed. 

 

Bizarre he thought threatening the Ecuadorian government was the way to go - now sit back and enjoy his online nuttermob proclaim his innocence and pick your favourite conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

"Harry and Meghan announce royal birth will be private", says Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-announce-royal-birth-will-be-private-11690442

 

What else were they considering? A bed stationed outside the gates of Buckingham Palace? Birth at a garden party attended by the Queen and carefully selected members of the public?

A major event in a stadium, involving celebrities, TV coverage and live streaming, all proceeds going to appropriate charities?

 

Good to see the Royals showing some dignity, but disturbing to imagine they had to think twice about it. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

"Harry and Meghan announce royal birth will be private", says Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-announce-royal-birth-will-be-private-11690442

 

What else were they considering? A bed stationed outside the gates of Buckingham Palace? Birth at a garden party attended by the Queen and carefully selected members of the public?

A major event in a stadium, involving celebrities, TV coverage and live streaming, all proceeds going to appropriate charities?

 

Good to see the Royals showing some dignity, but disturbing to imagine they had to think twice about it. 

I suspect they where receiving lucrative offers from the various gutter press and celeb mags (is there a difference?) and wanted to put a stop to them.

 

I'm sure there's plenty of 'celebs' that would jump at the chance to tell the world what it's like to have a baby as if they were Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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