Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
He's not a Labour MP.
|
Ok, a former Labour MP. I hope that clarification helps.
---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
This isn't the Brexit thread, from which I'm currently banned, so I'm not going to address your points, which I suspect you've had three years to formulate after the fact.
The UK can hardly be democratic with majority Governments that 65% of people voted for someone else.
|
Take a cold shower, jfman. I was responding to the point made in your own post.
---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Proportional representation. As in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Germany, etc.
---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------
I doubt 33 million people sought to educate themselves on all of those matters.
|
Exactly how high a level of education do you need to work that out, jfman? What an arrogant point of view you have towards Labour voting leavers!
One can only assume they were who you were referring to.
---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
I chose this article because it was reasonably balanced and offered an objective opinion. Things that you seem to be incapable of understanding. All Governments can be criticised with the clarity of hindsight but the essence of this article is that the overwhelming cause of the 10 years of austerity was the 2008/9 financial crisis caused by the City and their free market greed. Furthermore, the people who caused this get bailed out by us, the tax payer, with no penalties and are now busy working a repeat of 2008/9.
Your inability to assign the blame at the door of those responsible speaks volumes ...
|
You only think the article is balanced because it meets with your mindset. I was drawing attention to a certain part of that article to show that the point I had been making was valid. Strange that you are so blind to that that you appear to have 'unseen' it.
---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
Give it a break. The "I know what I voted for" ship has long sailed. All the adults in the room understand that people voted for many different reasons. In fact, and this is a real shock I suspect, some voted for no reason at all. They didn't give a damn because no-one gave a damn about them.
|
You seem quite happy for remainers to trot out this nonsense, but when leavers send out their consistent responses, you moan about it. If you don't want to hear this response over and over then tell your mates to stop making the same points over and over. The answer won't change the more times you make erroneous statements.
---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
It would literally be a Government that people did vote for.
|
Yes, a hung Parliament in perpetuity. Now wouldn't you just like that!
---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
According to statistics Remain voters are highly educated !
|
Obviously the view of highly qualified remain supporting statisticians.
---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
It'd have closer policy outcomes to what the majority want, rather than satisfying a minority of the people with a majority Government.
Compromise - I know that notion died in 2016 - would be the result. Either way I'm only pointing out that in the UK FPTP, an unelected House of Lords and an ineffective Head of State leave us some distance from what could be considered democracy.
|
No, it would satisfy nobody. Have you not heard the frustration of the people of having to endure this Parliamentary pergatory for the last few years? That is definitely not what people want. That would only play into the hands of anarchists.
---------- Post added at 19:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
She literally sat there and had to carry forward illegal advice from a Prime Minister. Totally ineffective in a role that could and should perform an important check and balance against an incompetent executive.
|
I think the Queen is far more educated in terms of constitutional matters than most presidents. I would remind you that the legal advice was endorsed by the Attorney General. Why should she not accept it?
The core of the problem was that a biased Speaker who showed clearly that he would do all he could to sabotage Brexit simply manipulated the rules of Parliament and caused a Constitutional crisis.
Fortunately, in the new Parliament we will have a more traditional Speaker whom both sides can respect.