Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
637
-
531
-
334
-
329
-
311
-
244
-
241
-
209
-
197
-
186
-
183
-
176
-
164
-
158
-
150
-
133
-
120
-
115
-
105
-
104
-
103
-
101
-
97
-
82
-
80
-
72
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
[Mild rant!]
I'm afraid I find it difficult to take people seriously when they dismiss Labour's defeat as being solely because they were "too left wing". It's grossly simplistic, and it glosses over the purpose of having multiple parties in the election. Why bother having two different parties at all, if both of them are vaguely centrist / right wing, and both broadly echo each other's policy positions?
And what's this about Boris Johnson's government somehow being "moderate"? It's not. The only way you can present Johnson as a moderate is by ignoring 90% of what he says and does, and cherrypicking the bits you want to hear. The reality is that breaking off our ties with the EU without a deal is an incredibly extreme position, and one that even Nigel Flipping Farage wouldn't dare stand on, during the 2016 referendum campaign!
I think right-wingers like him only make sense, if your memory and understanding of politics doesn't stretch back to the days before 2016. People like me who studied politics before Brexit was a glimmer in the mingy milkman's eye, will recognise a No-Deal scenario as a sudden and extreme divergence away from a course that we plotted nearly 50 years ago. There is nothing moderate about that.
And that's before we mention the fact that for no readily apparent reason, the Conservatives have decided to go after child refugees' rights and protections. Like I say, no readily apparent reason - it's not as though they promised to do this in their manifesto, and literally nobody asked them to do this. They just seem to have plucked this idea out of thin air, and included it in their white paper, without the remotest consideration for the harm it might do. This is not what a Moderate would do.
But hey, I suppose the purpose of panels like this is to get us discussing politics and engaging with other people's points of view, so mission accomplished. It's just a shame that people like Ollie are now considered part of the mainstream, instead of the right-wing kooks they really are.
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
A friendly reminder to some peculiarly angry commenters on this video: Channel 4 reports the news - it doesn't make the news.
If you're interested, I'll provide a broad overview of the problem below - please keep your replies civil:
It just so happens that we live on a planet with limited resources. I'm going to keep it simple, but the two resources which matter in this case are arable land and CO2 absorption. If you emit more CO2 faster than plants can absorb it, then that excess gas remains in the atmosphere, building up over time. Elementary stuff, I know, but not everybody's as clever as you, smartypants.
The purpose of farming is to produce calories for human consumption. Again for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to just boil it down to two broad ways we can obtain calories - meat and vegetables. Using the same amount of land and allowing the same amount of carbon emissions, vegetable farming wins every single time. When you want to produce meat calories (by raising animals) you actually have to create vegetable calories first and then feed them to your livestock. At a conservative estimate, when you farm animals, 90% of the calories produced by the system are straight-up wasted this way.
Remember, the amount of arable land in the system is a fixed quantity. So once we reach a certain population count, the land simply cannot support a growing population that relies on meat. If we swap over to vegetable production, then we can increase the carrying capacity almost ten times over.
In fact, because of the cavernous difference in efficiencies, it would be very possible for people to continue eating meat in reasonable quantities well into the future, without cutting the population at all, and potentially leaving quite a bit of arable land to spare. However, there will be a tradeoff. Either we exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, or we cut our present meat consumption down.
Notice how I explained this without once adopting a political viewpoint. That is what Channel 4 has also done. Raging against vegans isn't going to change the cold, hard, mathematical realities of living on a planet with finite resources.
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
The political crisis we face is not to do with Brexit, or sovereignty, the EU or our international partners - it's domestic. For generations two parties have dominated British politics, while having policies which are almost exact deadringers for one another. These two parties have been free to get sloppy, to get detached, to stop caring what the people who voted for them actually wanted. They didn't need to worry whether their voters would hold them to account - because who were they going to vote for? The other lot? Even if they did lose an election, they were practically guaranteed to win the one after that, so they could just keep taking it in turns to bleed the country dry. And while Labour has been gobbling up the middle ground (leaving its old working class voters scrambling for somebody, ANYBODY to represent their interests) the Conservatives have been running to the hard right, for fear of getting outflanked by UKIP.
Meanwhile, the office of the Prime Minister has grown in seniority and has been vested with far more power than its historical counterparts. Now, we essentially have a President - but not one who is elected by the people, or even by Parliament, but instead is simply appointed by the largest party, according to the internal, usually rather opaque and baroque rules of that party, whichever it happens to be. The Prime Minster has absorbed responsibilities for making Britain's foreign policy, for setting the tone for the national debate, and deciding what Parliament will vote on and when. Frankly, when you see it laid out in front of you, it's more of a surprise that things didn't blow up spectacularly before now.
Brexit isn't actually a relevant issue AT ALL. The issue for generations has been that our "democratic" system is nothing of the kind. It's a hand-me-down from the 1800s, from a time when the mere idea that all people should have a vote and a say in the future of their country was highly controversial. We can't blame the EU for the screwiness of our system. That's on us. It's high time we fixed it. An end to the hegemony of the Labour and Conservative Parties, and the beginning of a new Democratic Britain, with proportional representation, ensuring that the governments of our future will actually speak with the mandate of the majority of voters - and will serve the interests of us *all*, not just their constituencies and their donors.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The problem underpinning Brexit is not, in my opinion, our relationship with Europe. I think the problem is two competing visions for the future of the country.
Brexit is just, and always has been, a cover story to obtain British people's consent to sign away their rights and their democracy, back to the elites (such as Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Farage), who for centuries have held power and are now seeing it nibbled away from all sides. Europe is a threat to their inherited right to power, because institutions like the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) will always serve as a guardrail against the very reactionary policies they'd most like to implement (crackdowns on LGBTQ identities, attacks on reproductive rights, constriction of religious and political freedoms, closing the borders, implementing tougher and more punitive prison measures). Meanwhile, the people of this country are better educated than ever, and the young are more capable than ever of fiercely opposing them at the ballot box.
So now, here we are. On the cusp of finally being rid of the aristocracy, the British people are being offered a blank cheque, by the aristocracy. Sign here, they say, and we'll solve all your problems. Just give us all the power, and don't ask too many questions. All we need to do is take away the naughty policemen in Europe who might stop us from running away with the family silver.
For the people who continue to support Brexit, I doubt that the strides towards totalitarian government (attacks on the media, shutting down Parliament, branding opposition voices as "traitors") are disturbing. They downright applaud such brazen fascistic steps. In Britain, like in most other countries around the world it would seem, there's between 30-35% of the population who would (even if they are reluctant to admit it) rather like to be governed by a strongman or a dictator.
So, what'll it be? Will you sign on the dotted line, and let the Big Man take away all your problems.... and your freedoms? Or will you open your eyes, and oppose Brexit, oppose Trump, oppose the voices of fear and unreason, who would consign our planet and our freedoms to the dustbin of history?
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
For all the right-wingers who say that "humbug" is not a bad word, I have a message for you:
I agree. Of course it's not. But as you delightfully, weirdly pedantic troll-folk of the internet well know, it's not the word that is itself that upsets people. It's the context in which that word is used.
You yourselves know, from your personal lives, exactly what I mean by this. You know how irritating it is to have somebody tell you "have a nice day!" after they just interrupted your nice day to cold-call you with insurance options you don't need. You know how "I love you" can be spat back at you ironically by a partner whose affections have already gone astray. You know how "yes Daddy", can actually mean "I'm going to pretend to hear you Daddy, but don't worry, I'm going to go right back to eating the fridge magnets when you're not looking Daddy."
Well, "humbug" is the same way. It is not that Boris Johnson said "humbug", but the context in which he said it, which is offensive.
An MP has been killed because of violent, militant rhetoric. And when Johnson's colleagues brought this up to him, he laughed it off with that word.
So continue to mock Lefties, if you must, Lord knows we find reasons to make ourselves look stupid from time to time, but don't imagine for a second that we don't know what you're doing. If you're one of those thin-skinned, two-bit bullies who are mocking people for their rightful fear of political murder, then you are the problem. Not the word humbug. Not Boris Johnson. YOU. It's revolting, and it has to stop.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Scary as it might be, Coronavirus doesn't look like a civilisation-ender.
What it does do, I think, is highlight the challenges faced by a growing world population - especially as that population increasingly moves away from the countryside and into densely-packed cities. Our approaches to hygiene, travel and even holidaymaking are likely to change as a result of Covid-19. For one thing, I wonder if this might be the next nail in the coffin for the cruise-ship-holiday industry. These ships have never been a sustainable way to provide holidays, serving as nothing more than factories for pollution, and hothouses for the spread of disease.
I also speculate that our fashion may change quite drastically over the coming years. Masks will go from being a novelty, to being an unwelcome intrusion, to being a normal fact of life, again, especially in those densely-packed cities. Wearing gloves may once again become the norm, and shaking hands may become passé - even frowned upon! - a gesture to be reserved only for the most honoured and esteemed of business partners.
It also highlights the need for better public information services - where there are ads for fake products online, and scam treatments for the disease, there should be bulletins from credible public health authorities, advisories as to which areas we should avoid. There should be a campaign to raise public awareness of the need to protect the vulnerable and the elderly, by getting our vaccines (instead of freeloading off other people's herd immunity), and public health classes provided, as standard, in every school.
Finally, we need to start funding the NHS properly again - we cannot have A&E departments operating on emergency footing year-round. If the NHS can't stay open when we aren't facing the teeth of a pandemic, how do we expect it to cope when the sick and dying start flooding in?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I am going to make a prediction: if Brexit is not cancelled, it will devour the careers of one Prime Minister after another, at an accelerating pace. It will eat Leadsom first, then Gove, then Johnson, then Mordaunt, then Rees Mogg. One after another, they will ascend to primacy, they will draft their life's Magnum Opus, they will deliver it to the Commons and watch it get burnt to a cinder. Then they will be escorted out of Number 10, to be swiftly replaced by another, even more degenerate and incompetent chancer. Eventually, perhaps after five or six tries, a candidate for leadership will observe the suspiciously fresh pile of prime ministerial cadavers, piling up beside the door, and say "You know what, I don't think this job's for me, thanks".
There is no workable form of Brexit. The truly great thing for a Prime Minister to do would be to stand up in front of that podium, and address the nation with the words: "Britain - you have been scammed. Brexit was a lie sold to you by hucksters and careerists looking to make fast money at your expense, and at the expense of our democracy. I am going to the House, to put a bill to revoke Article 50, and then I am going to resign. God save us all."
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I'd agree with you Maanze, except to my mind, Brexit was a vehicle designed from the bottom-up for the so-called "hijackers". It was a blank cheque which, if signed, would give completely free rein to any politician ever to do whatever they wanted, and claim their mandate from that vote. Crash out and lose access to the customs union? "Leave means leave." Declare martial law and suppress riots following a crash-out Brexit? "Will of the people." Swingeing cuts to the NHS? "It's all in pursuit of Brexit, and after all, the people voted for it."
All of this, assuming it did win. If it didn't, it would've been a boon to the careers of men like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, even Nigel Farage - an actual Brexit isn't particularly good for them, because inevitably they'll start upsetting people who don't like the outcome. But a hypothetical Brexit that they can agitate for whips up the kinds of voters that have been falling by the wayside for some time - in other words - racists and ultra-nationalists. Boris was looking to martial the votes of the BNP-loving crowd, while still keeping his "centrist" credentials intact. So in fact, had he lost, he'd have been in an even better position to go after the premiership. Winning was, if anything, a rather inconvenient upset that they themselves hadn't counted on.
That's why I voted Remain - not because I love the EU, but because I (rather presciently, if I may say so) anticipated exactly these kind of shenanigans.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I suspect a female leader will just be ground to pulp by the right-wing media machine, just like Corbyn was. On principle, I think women should be able to lead a party - but practically speaking, they'll just be torn apart in this macho political climate. Just look at Jess Philips, Hillary Clinton, Diane Abbott, Elizabeth Warren - all of them turned into hate figures.
This needs to change, but until Labour has actually won an election, now just isn't the time. Somebody generic and safe like Starmer is Labour's best bet - somebody who will be able to credibly offer people an end to the chaos. Labour can "be the change" once they've won office. Until then, even if we find the rules of the game repulsive, it's time to focus on winning.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The choice has always been deceptively simple: leave without a deal, crashout - or revoke Article 50. There simply is no in-between, no compromise that will please enough people.
Either you're a hypernationalist and think that the economic disruption is worth "restoring our sovereignty", or you're like everybody else who breathes air, drinks water and eats food, and realise that sticking two fingers up to your closest trading partners when you depend on them for your daily necessities is not a bright idea.
The vote in the House of Commons that almost got through, proposing to leave the European Union but remain within the Customs Union is a dead end, just like May's deal. It's the plan with the least flesh on its bones, and the least clarity about what it would actually mean in practical terms. It would please none of the Brexiters who wanted Brexit in the first place, since it leaves us firmly in the EU's sphere of influence, and it pleases none of us Remainers who want to continue to have a say in the future of Europe and how it is governed (and yes, I realise how ironic that is, given the sheer incompetence of our government, but there you go).
In short: revoke Article 50, or put it to a People's Vote (which amounts to the same thing).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You can be assured of one thing, Theresa: you won't be the last Prime Minister to fall to the rampaging, all-devouring monster that is Brexit. Your successor will too, and probably their successor as well. Eventually, perhaps we'll get a Prime Minister who, noticing the suspiciously fresh pile of severed limbs by the door of Number 10, will decide to turn back. Perhaps by that point, they'll decide it's just easier to blame the Opposition than to try and follow through on a doomed policy.
It's a wild prediction to make, but I think it's not unreasonable to imagine that this time 12 months from now, we'll have had no fewer than five different Prime Ministers all try, and fail, to make Brexit happen. By that stage, we might all be thanking our lucky stars for revoking Article 50 - and not just hardcore Remainers like myself.
Should the Conservatives continue to pander to the far-right, they will forever find themselves outflanked, with the Brexit monster gnawing on their legs - because Nigel Farage and his Brexit party will always find some new, even more outlandish demand - and will then declare that anything less would be a "betrayal" of the "People" who have "spoken". Should the Conservatives try to forge a new compromise, their own (largely geriatric) supporters and activists will take them out and leave their ashes as burnt offerings to the Brexit monster - lest it come for them in the night.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As somebody who started getting really interested in politics (as it was one of my studies) about 10 years ago, I quickly realised that, aside from their rhetoric, both the Labour and Conservative parties were essentially hewing to the same governmental doctrine. It struck me at the time, that this rendered the entire democratic system rather meaningless. Lo and behold, here we are now, and it seems like everybody's finally waking up to the reality, that whether you vote Red or Blue, you still get exactly the same loud-mouthed incompetent in Number 10.
For those who are liberal-minded, and want to see Britain progress into the future with social welfare and inclusion for everybody, then the Lib Dems and the Greens are our best hope. For those who think that closing the borders and preserving "cultural norms" are more important than prosperity (or even happiness) then I guess vote Brexit Party and try not to look too deeply into your comrades' backgrounds...
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Our Theresa,
Which Art in No 10,
Harrowed Be Thy Name,
Thy kingdom's glum,
Thy deal be done,
In England as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread ration,
And forgive us our restlessness,
As we forgive those stupid restless Remainers,
And lead us not into redemption,
But deliver us unto evil,
For the Kingdom, the power and the vainglory are yours,
Now until next Tuesday,
Amen.
@philipeaton3102
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rayray2613 A bioweapon isn't a poor man's nuke - it's a very rich man's suicide button. They would take trillions of dollars to develop, and would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to control. Think about it, which of these scenarios is more likely?
- A virus makes a leap from an animal host to a human one, in an unsanitary street market in China, where thousands of people have unprotected contact with raw meat.
- An impoverished nation magically develops a powerful bioweapon using its non-existent scientific capability, and then uses it to attack its nearest and largest ally.
If anybody was actually going to release a bioweapon, you know what they'd actually do? They'd break into the labs holding the last samples of the Smallpox virus, and they'd release that back into circulation. That would be how you did it. Far more cost-effective, and a virus that's proven to work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Referendums are not the same as votes in a general election. This is a widespread myth that the Brexiters have given more than enough oxygen to, but it needs to stop. Referenda are actually the least democratic way to vote.
Don't believe me? See how the mathematics shake out:
In a two-option, winner-takes-all referendum, only the first 50.001% of votes count. Provided they get one more vote than the other side, they win. Every vote cast after that point - whether it is cast for the winner or not - might as well be thrown in a big shredder. In a referendum where a million people vote, 499,999 are guaranteed not to be represented in any way whatsoever. This is what is called a "Democratic Deficit" - it's a number of people who actively participated in the system, in good faith, and got diddly squat for their trouble.
See, Democracy is supposed to be government by the people, with the people, for the people - not just some of the people. In a representative and proportionally-represented Democracy, almost every single vote will count towards a seat, meaning that every person does have somebody to speak for them. Even first past the post is generally a better representation of the population than a referendum.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jameswhiteley6843 Carl has openly joked about wanting to rape a specific Labour politician, and he's been part of a "comedy" panel where he laughed along to jokes about university students (female students) being acceptable targets for rape.
I'm not especially interested in your buzzwords or your catchphrases, I know them all by heart by now, believe me. I'm just curious as to what it is you actually think you believe. Every time I've had a conversation with somebody like you, to this point, and tried to dig into what specifically it is they want to happen in the world, they've either laughed it off as a joke, or they've refused to actually explain themselves in detail.
In this case, you haven't actually answered my question yet. Do you support censorship of your political opponents? Are you against all censorship, or is your beef with MSM and social media for shutting down a specific set of speakers that you happen to support?
If your movement really is going to grow into something relevant, these are the kind of questions you're going to have to find answers for, rather than deflecting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jameswhiteley6843 Oh I sincerely doubt that this is a C4 problem. I think YouTube is just playing up. Here is what I wrote:
"I am obviously concerned about fundamentalist Islam, but I don't think that the White Helmets are a valid target for that concern. From what I can tell, they're the nearest thing that Syria is going to get to having any "good guys". They're average joes who don't have any weapons or any political agenda - they're just operating bargain-bin ambulances to try and save lives.
The mere fact that the Russians and Assad want to brand them as terrorists doesn't make them so. After all, Russia, America, Assad, even the UK, everybody has an agenda that they're trying to pursue, so I'd rather look at the facts on the ground (such as we can get) and base my views off that. I've yet to see any evidence that the White Helmets are anything other than what they claim to be - humanitarians trying to save lives. Of course Assad doesn't like them - anybody who might conceivably save the life of a rebel soldier is automatically an enemy, according to his world view. He doesn't care about international law, or human rights, after all.
Assad's regime, make no mistake, is an oppressive, totalitarian nightmare, and Assad himself has no compunctions about murdering his own citizens to maintain control. He is far from being the lesser of many evils. The only reason he tolerates religious minorities is because faith is less important to him than absolute, unswerving loyalty to the Syrian state (and him as its leader).
If we want to agree on something, let's agree to be very suspicious of all the many, many outsiders - Americans, Russians, Iranians, Israelis, Turks, British and the rest - who have shipped arms and assistance into Syria, to try and put a finger on the scales of the conflict. Throwing more guns into a powder keg like Syria was never going to end well, and I think offering sponsorship to "moderate" Islamists is bound to end up biting us all in the collective behind. We should never have allowed Syria to become yet another international proxy war.
As for social lives, I hear you man, it's hard talking to lots of people. What I find is though, is that the pace at which I can meet new people rarely exceeds the pace at which existing contacts kind of drift away. It's constant effort, especially for somebody like me, but it's better than being shut indoors all day, every day. Which is a thing I have experienced."
And now I must say good night, and see you in the next one, haha
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And this would be the long answer:
At the time, in 2017, the fallout from Brexit was only just beginning to settle. Theresa May was still new, and so was Jeremy Corbyn. Their respective positions on the Brexit debate remained unclear, allowing both Remain and Leave voters to project their wishes onto their leadership. Both Labour and the Conservatives benefited from this, and they were able to fight the 2017 election along traditional lines. We should've known at the time that this wouldn't last, but many pundits predicted that the old-school bipartite system of government was beginning to reassert itself (perhaps overlooking the fact that the election had still yielded a hung parliament).
This would not last, however. Theresa May tried no fewer than three times to bring back a compromise from the EU - a deal which the EU promised it would sign if only she could steer it through Parliament. Unfortunately for her, there was no appetite for compromise, either among her party's backbenchers or among the people of the country. It soon became clear that her promises to negotiate a fair compromise that would satisfy everybody was nothing more than hot air and platitudes. She had promised the impossible, and inevitably, had failed to deliver it. And because Jeremy Corbyn was saying the same thing, promising the exact same kind of negotiations would take place under his premiership, he actually wound up getting tarred with the same brush. Why vote for an even less competent leader to try and do what the previous one had failed to?
Fundamentally, the myth that it would be possible to craft a "Soft Brexit", evaporated.
And now today we can finally see the new political terrain in front of us. The smoke has cleared. Both the Remain and Leave camps have hardened. Voters are now pretty clear on what they want - on both sides of the aisle. And a "middle ground" position, as offered by Jeremy Corbyn and the "moderate" Tories has been resoundingly rejected - and yet many of them continue to hew to that same line. The Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party, by contrast, adopted hardline positions that appealed to the uncompromising single-issue voters. Thus, in 2019, they scooped up piles of votes from the Tories and from Labour.
At a stroke, the debate around Brexit has essentially deleted our entire country's political internet search history. We're starting out as if from scratch, with Internationalists and Liberals on one side, Nationalists and Authoritarians on the other. Neither the Labour party nor the Conservatives are suited to fighting an election on this kind of ground, and their efforts to pivot to more clearcut Brexit positions are likely to fall on deaf ears - their reserves of goodwill and trust among the electorate have been utterly spent. Meanwhile, the Liberals' history been reexamined. Many people who held them accountable for the worst excesses of the Coalition government are now prepared to lay the blame where, perhaps, it should have been placed all along - at the door of David Cameron and his Bullingdon cabinet. People are willing to forgive them, because right now, the Liberals offer Remainers the last best chance they have at a redo of the Referendum result, and to save the country from the madness that would be a crash-out exit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah no. It may be satisfying to imagine retribution against inept politicians, closing the borders at this stage wouldn't have helped much.
Controlling the spread of a pandemic is about more than containing the virus - it's about containing the social damage inflicted by people going into panic, and markets collapsing. If we shut down all international travel and trade, yes, you probably could stop the spread of the virus - but you'd have a humanitarian crisis on your hands, as nations like ours (which import huge amounts of food) would abruptly face acute shortages.
Even if it were as simple as just closing the borders, how exactly would you "sue" politicians for that? Who would you sue, for starters? The Prime Minister? The Cabinet? The entire Parliament? And what would be your charge? Negligence? Do you think you could construct a compelling, bulletproof case for that? The burden of proof would be enormously high - and politicians have walked free from much greater, and much better-evidenced charges.
TL/DR: if you want real change, what we need is to elect better politicians - not empty slogans or empty threats.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This was not a General Election however, and comparing the results in that way is unbelievably deceptive, in a number of different ways.
1) Euro elections turnout is always low compared to General Elections - and this one was no exception. This amplifies the power of Conservative voices, since Conservative voters (who are often older and retired) will be able to turn out, even when the rest of the population stays home.
2) Euro elections use a different electoral system, which makes it far safer to vote as your heart leads you - whereas in General Elections, tactical voting makes far more sense, since the two main parties have such secure control over most seats. Many Brexit Party voters would likely revert to the Tories were it a General Election, just to prevent Labour from getting in.
3) In the case of this specific election, it comes at a very opportune moment for Farage and his goons. The Brexit Party has only just been established, and has no real history or manifesto to be measured by. Enthusiasm for it is at an all-time high - and will likely never be any higher. Any future elections will leave them scrambling to hold onto the votes they already have, rather than adding to their pile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steveandjohn3259 Yes, we could send lots of people back to work, to slave at low-paying jobs in close contact with lots of customers and colleagues, most of whom won't be wearing any form of PPE, putting them at greater risk of contracting the virus.
Or we could do the humane thing, and offer them welfare, like a civilised country. But we can't have that, oh no no. Throw more another poor person on the fire, Jenkins!
Seriously, don't bother with this regurgitated, half-digested right-wing corporatist bullshit. I haven't got the patience for it tonight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have read what you've written, and it's increasingly clear that you're following the same exact script that other faux-middle-grounders use.
By its nature, this is a women's prison. These people aren't in a position to fix the prison system as a whole. All they can do is set an example and make the lives of their inmates better, leading them to a lower rate of recidivism. That somewhere else, men have it worse, is neither here nor there - either as far as this prison is concerned, or from the perspective of these journalists at Channel 4.
The existence of segregated prisons means that inevitably, there are going to be differences in how the genders are treated, because perfect equality is impossible - but a policy which proves to work well in one context may eventually be applied in the other.
So if you really care about the wellbeing of men, or just people in general, you should support projects like this one, because its existence strongly improves the likelihood that one day a men's prison will go the same route. @thepolticalone961
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Adele K I'm looking through the results and comparing the difference between 2017 and 2019, and it's really hard to say that there was actually that much of a swing away from Labour direct to the Conservatives. The Conservatives gained around 3000 votes (going from 18,000 to 21,000), but Labour lost 8000 (going from 24,000 down to just 16,000), which seems to underscore my point, not yours.
As I said originally, it's not that Labour voters converted en masse to the Tories - it's that Labour voters didn't turn up, or potentially voted for third parties (which amounts to the same thing).
2
-
@Adele K I should clarify then, I don't really mean to suggest anything more complex than that it is wrong to think that 8000 Labour voters swapped to the Conservatives, which is the impression one would get from listening to the beginning of this report. I framed it as saying that a lot of Labour voters stayed home, because that's an alternative narrative I've also heard, but that's probably just as shaky, in all fairness.
If I were pressed, I'd just say that the results were messy, and I expect a combination of factors were responsible, rather than any one. Yes, I imagine Brexit was a key factor, but so too was the state of the leadership, and so too was the manifesto (which was populated with excellent policies, but too many for the average voter to have faith that it was serious).
Of course, without stopping and interviewing every single Bolsover voter, it would be hard to know for sure, but this is why I should try to keep my assertions fairly tight and limited. I hope that makes sense. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameswhiteley6843 See, here we are going to have to differ. Hate speech is not determined by the recipient. That's a ludicrous proposition. By that token, I could call anything hate speech, and nobody on earth behaves that way.
Hate speech, clearly defined, is any speech which is likely to give rise to hatred towards any group or individual based on cultural, ethnic, religious, social or political lines.
That might be somewhat subjective, depending on what you consider "likely to give rise to hatred", but I would argue that joking about raping somebody is very likely to cause them harm, especially if I have hundreds of thousands of militant followers, who are likely to act on even my subtler suggestions.
What you have outlined here is possibly the most extremist possible interpretation of "freedom of speech", which amounts to "mob rule". You won't find many people who agree with that interpretation.
1
-
1
-
@jameswhiteley6843 See, right from the start of your comment, you've got the whole concept back to front. When somebody commits a crime, seemingly your first question is "what race was the culprit?" - which I think is a rather loopy way to break down crime. Since when did the race of the perpetrator have anything to do with how they're treated? Nobody is above the law - especially not on grounds of race. I think it would be far more pertinent to ask "who was the victim?" and see if there's any correlations in the pattern of who gets targeted for abuse and threats.
And wouldn't you know it, but if you're a woman, a person of colour or from a socially deprived group, you are far more likely to be attacked or abused than a white man would be. But that's neither here nor there. Crimes are crimes, and should be punished. The fact that you don't like it that hate crimes are punishable by law doesn't change that law. The law is the law.
And please will you stop wittering on about the "dishonest media", some of us are trying to have a serious grown-up conversation here. If you can't stay on-topic, then get off this forum. For the record, the far-right doesn't have a monopoly on critique of the mainstream media. I have a few words of my own for them, but that is not the topic of this conversation.
Another thing which we are not talking about is "criticism". What I'm seeing from people like Karl Benjamin isn't criticism, it's just stoking hatred. Again, I see no possible way to justify the comment "I wouldn't even rape you".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craig194590 If you actually are a severe dyslexic, then that explains the spelling, and I apologise for any offence caused on that front. You understand of course that this is the internet, and there's no shortage of people making bold claims - such as your 210 IQ. I'm not going after you on a personal basis - it's just equal-opportunity pedantry on my part. Frankly, I don't care what your IQ is anyway, I'm only interested in the quality of your arguments.
And that's the issue. Your arguments seem a bit... insubstantial. You're quoting statistics that you literally made up off the top of your head. Now, as the holder of two doctorates, I'm sure you can tell me how that kind of practice would get graded on one of your academic papers, yes? I realise this is only a comment section, but you can't make things up and expect strangers on the internet to respect it like it's gospel truth.
Anyway, have a nice day. I don't feel like wasting any more of your time... or mine. <3
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
alan peaco First of all, why would you want to, seeing what a disaster this go around has been? Second of all, if you're so afraid that you won't get a second chance, maybe that's because it just doesn't command majority support - in which case, in a democracy, it probably isn't going to happen.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly - the conversation isn't over just because this round is over. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, sounding people out, building support and working together to solve common problems. If you're looking for it to work like a sports game, one game only, winner takes all - sorry, you're going to be disappointed at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevengrice7502 I think you've touched on something which I've been bellowing from the rooftops for some time now - referendums are a terrible way to decide national policy. If you already know what outcome is likely, then they're a waste of time and resources. If you don't, then you're essentially flipping a coin, and locking yourself in to whatever result you get - knowing that it really is a matter of chance which way it goes.
As with the Brexit referendum, the implications are deep and far-reaching, and to this day, most people still don't understand the full ramifications of it. I think that matters of foreign policy, like this, are beyond most people's ability to get straight in their minds. I've studied this subject and I still find it overwhelming. When people are unable to apply reason, they fall back on raw emotion, and that's what we've seen hurled at us by the Brexit side of the debate, in spades.
On that basis, it doesn't seem like a safe and reliable way to decide national policy, and like I say, once you've had a referendum, you're locked in - even if the thing that people voted for turns out to be undeliverable, impractical, disastrous - and whether or not the vote was won fairly or whether it was won by fraud. On top of that, when the result was so close to begin with, the losing side will rightly feel that it's being discarded, and unrepresented.
Referendums are not democratic. They are the least democratic of all possible votes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petar4002 Nice try, troll.
Neither you nor the Russians care a bean about Nazis. If you did, you wouldn't have fully adopted their tactics, their methods, their goals. You wouldn't be comfortable with committing war crimes on an industrial scale, deporting Ukrainian men, women and children, executing prisoners, threatening nuclear power plants, blowing up civilian infrastructure, terror bombing populated areas.
The Ukrainian government is fighting for the freedom of its people from Russian imperialist barbarity. May they win, and may your soldiers quickly discover the value of surrender.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stepheniebailey6760 You shouldn't speak of yourself that way, Stephanie!
On a slightly less flippant note, I think you need to understand respect is earned. You are not going to win my respect, or that of any other young person, with your frankly atrocious attitude.
For one thing, you (wrongly) assumed my gender online, with no basis whatever. For another, you've slung around accusations of rudeness, stereotyped an entire generation including your damn son. And yet you feel entitled to our fullest courtesy and deference? Yeah, screw you.
If you're really such a grown-up, start acting like one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KIMJUNGEUNism No, by my logic, America, Canada and Mexico should form a preferential trade agreement. OH WAIT, THEY HAVE.
When it comes to trade, geographic proximity may not be the ultimate decider of who you ally with - but it's a pretty powerful incentive to get along. Like it or not, if two countries are situated at great distances from each other, the costs of trade are going to be much greater than if you were to trade with a closer neighbour.
As for the "Commonwealth Countries" - I think you're conflating those with Crown Dependencies and the like. And yes, I do think we should be thinking about returning them to their rightful owners - with their citizens' consent.
As for "Democracy must be delivered, deal or no deal" - well, please allow me to invite you to consider a slightly broader definition of the word 'Democracy'. Democracy is an ongoing process of debate, discussion and procedures - the referendum in 2016 was a snapshot - a moment in time - and people have moved on since then. The clear majority of people in this country now wants to remain in the EU. Do you think you, a member of the minority, ploughing ahead against their wishes is a particularly "Democratic" thing to do?
No. You only feign love of "Democracy" because it's a convenient posture for you to strike, right now, and it shuts up a fair proportion of polite democrats who lack the spine or the appetite to fight back. You don't care about democracy - you care about getting Brexit at any cost, to anybody. Nothing else apparently matters, because, underneath it all, at the very bottom of it, you're just angry, and you want to lash out at somebody.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garywright8137 Wall of text alert! Apologies in advance:
I think the problem with Corbyn is that he's an honest man, sure, but he's been utterly toothless in opposing Johnson and his incompetent shower of buffoons.
More worryingly, his hands are far from clean, when it comes to the in-fighting going on within the Labour party - with his own close associates and allies stitching up New Labour hold-ons like Tom Watson, to try and get them out of a job. That kind of ideological purge has nasty resonance with other Socialist movements through history.
My biggest quarrel with Corbyn though, is his Brexit policy. To my mind, it's a no-brainer that Labour policies would be far easier to achieve from within the EU - since they're actually very closely aligned with EU standards. And yet it seems likely Corbyn would actually rather that we left?
This position is especially puzzling when you consider his pledge to select Labour policies democratically - and has then proceeded to completely stymie the Remainer majority within his own party.
I don't think Corbyn deserved to be demonised like he was prior to his election - if anything, it only poured petrol on the fire. But I think it is dangerously naive to see him as anything other than a liability for Labour, and by extension, the country, going forwards.
Labour is supposed to be our answer to Conservative incompetence, and yet under Corbyn, the possibility of a Labour government has never seemed more remote.
Sorry for the long post, but you seem like an articulate, respectful gentleman, and I feel like to write a shorter and pithier comment would be to invite an unnecessary misunderstanding. We on the Left need to be especially careful going forwards, as the differences between us should not blind us to the fact we are each other's natural allies, against Johnson and the Vote Leave cabinet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think anybody expecting Republicans to dump Trumpism is sadly going to be disappointed. 2016 was clearly no aberration.
Republicans have learned they can lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud, threaten democracy itself, and face no serious consequences. They have an ultra-loyal hardcore base that will excuse any and all behaviour so long as they "own the libs", so I see no pragmatic reason why they'd ever give that up. Why play normal politics when you can harness a literal cult of personality to drive you most of the way to the finishing line?
And besides, if the Republicans turn their back on Trumpism now, they'd have to rebuild their base from scratch. They've depended (tacitly) on the vote of white supremacists for years. If they go after Trump, they'll lose those voters, and they'd have to stitch together an entirely new constituency - and they'd now have to poach Democrats' supporters to build it. That's a tall order for a party that was only recently in power, and I'm willing to bet they'll give Trumpism at least one more spin.
And finally, from the perspective of Republican politicians, opposition is good for business. They're getting fat stacks of lobbyist money either way, and if they're OUT of power, they can campaign to their millionaire friends that much more persuasively. Whereas when they actually hold power, it's more difficult to secure those kind of donations. See, when you're in opposition, you can promise the earth and never have to worry about the means of delivery - with no danger of ever disappointing your donors. So in a sense, it suits them just fine to be locked into opposition.
So yeah, no. Trumpism is here to stay for the foreseeable future. At least for the next 4 years. I'm sure they'll find plenty of mileage in whining that Biden "stole" the election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rhyfelaherwfilwrol6732 In the past, before Brexit, I would've agreed with you. Like I say, it seems to me that the "unwritten constitution" has proven to be worth jack squat in the time since that vote - if conventions and norms are not followed, then said "constitution" simply ceases to be. Poof, it's turned back into hot air. We then fall back on our various other laws, which, I hasten to remind you, are not a formal constitution.
And I think in practice, our politicians have demonstrated repeatedly their contempt for both law and convention. Governments have attempted to operate without Parliamentary consent repeatedly, and they keep testing the boundaries of what they can get away with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The firestorm that's breaking out across Labour has been simmering quietly for months now. We all knew this was coming, and the Corbyn supporters have been keeping their swords sharp for this very moment. Dare I say it, Corbyn's support base has transformed into something of a cult of personality - something that accelerated when he was replaced as leader. I say this, as someone who actually used to support Corbyn back in the early days. Labour has become two parties trapped in the same ageing structure.
The irony is that Labour, without the far-left, is probably a lot more electable. It's their power and position to lose - they can easily go ahead and form another leftwing party, but they'll not win any seats, and they probably won't even get to steal much of Labour's share of the vote. That said, for both sides, I think a split in the party is the best solution for us all. Better to be allies sitting in two different tents, than to be forced to break bread with people you hate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeybarnes01 "Betrayal" is a very loaded term. I don't think you can fault them for trying to enact Brexit - but they clearly can't form a consensus on how best to do it, and we're now staring down the barrel of the gun.
You may think your vision for Brexit would work, and that people should "just" fall in line with it and agree. Yeah, sorry, that's not how democracy works. Building a consensus means you have to participate in a discussion, and be prepared to make compromises - instead of expecting to simply dictate terms from on high. (Mrs May's mistake, right there)
You may not see the harm in a crashout Brexit, but they do - it's their job to be informed on these things. If you're angry with your politicians, by all means, vote them out, but absolutely do not call them traitors, betrayers, and all of that jazz, and then expect me to treat you with anything other than contempt.
If you want respect, show some yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thirdfish When have I been patronising? And since when was a single vote suddenly binding for all time, sacred beyond all other measure? The majority of the country doesn't want Brexit - and certainly the vast majority doesn't want us to crash out. The referendum result should've been the start of a national conversation - but instead, you are trying to bulldoze this hardline policy through without even consulting those of us who voted the other way.
And let us not forget, leaving aside the manifold polls that show Remain far ahead of Leave since the referendum - that result was a narrow majority - 52% to 48%. You need us on-side if you're going to take the country forwards, and you have done nothing but hector, bully, threaten and preach. You haven't done anything to change our minds - and meanwhile, a lot of your former voters have slunk out the back door in shame and disgust. Your idea of compromise, seemingly, is to hold the other person at the end of a sword until they agree with you.
That's not how Democracy is supposed to work - and that's not even touching on the sheer uncertainty about what Brexit people even wanted in the first place, the dishonesty of the campaign that led to Leave winning the referendum, and the sheer impossibility of transacting such a deal without inflicting crippling damage on the governance and the economy of our island nation. The very integrity of the Union is at stake, and all you can do is yell slogans and thump your chests.
Finally, on the subject of the Brexit Party's lack of a manifesto - Nigel Farage says that he's going to let the Party membership decide that. It sounds like a democratic pledge, but it's really an abdication of responsibility. He doesn't have any real positions, and what he's actually doing is demonstrating his willingness to promise anything, irrespective of his ability to deliver it. In that, he's no different than any other corrupt, scumbag politician.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1