[Politics] Next Prime Minister

[Is it PotG?]

 

[Two Professors]

View attachment 111623

Where to even start...Seriously. How stupid does this man think people are?

Well,you have set the bar incredibly low.Do you realise how big a polluter Germany is?Even without the killer fumes from their cars,a full one third of their energy is generated by coal-fired power stations.

 

[the right footed denilson]

Johnson shouldn't be allowed to run, pure and simple. If he can't debate his colleagues or take questions from the press (who on the whole swoon at his buffonery) then what hope is he as the person to lead our country?!

 

[A1X]

I think the point has gone straight over your head.

No I really don't think it has. You claim that to want another referendum is to be in some way wishing to thwart democracy, when it was pointed out to you that democracy means the people have the right to change their mind you came up with some nonsense about how this was equivalent to wanting a General Election rerun if you didn't get the result you want. When it was then pointed out to you that General Elections ARE rerun every few years you decide that it's somehow me who is not understanding something.

So pray tell, what point actually is it that you are trying to make? Now I appreciate we're all busy people, so let me pull together a quick crib-sheet on this subject and why your concerns are misplaced;

You don't just rerun elections when you don't get the result you want!
Actually, General Elections are rerun every few years as it is generally accepted that every few years an electorate and circumstances have changed such that a new mandate is required. This is a widely accepted tenet of democracy in almost any democratic society in the world, from Australia to the USA, Iceland to South Africa, Russia to New Zealand. Even the EU recognise this fact and hold elections every five years as a result.

We already had a referendum, having another one would be undemocratic!
We did have a referendum, however as has been made abundantly clear the circumstances and wider global situation are much changed in June 2019 to what they were in June 2016. An aggressive, isolationist President sits in the White House. Many of the claims and promises of the Leave campaign have unravelled as the truth has emerged. Brexit is a fundamental realignment of Britain's role in not just Europe but the world as a whole, it makes sense that there is a confirmatory vote before doing that as the public should have the right to change their mind. Especially the many people too young to vote in 2016 who will be more affected by most than how this plays out. And besides all this we had one in 1975 anyway, so all this talk about holding more referendums on the same issue being bad is lost by those trying it even before it's begun.

We have to enact the results of first one before we do anything else!
Why? It was an advisory referendum (as all but a few in the UK are) and while it may provide an instruction to Parliament if Parliament feels it is not in the best interests of the country to enact the result then so be it, that is how representative democracy works. And if the people no longer wish to undertake the action laid out in 2016 why should it be forced on them against their will, as present polling suggests? "Ah", I hear you claim, "but David Cameron said whatever we chose would be enacted". Well yes he did. He also said he would eradicate the budget deficit by 2016, that he would not resign if he lost the referendum and would increase the money offered to Scotland if they voted No in their 2014 referendum. The man was clearly a serial liar. Indeed even the pro-Leave side told us to ignore anything Cameron (and others) said as they were peddling "Project Fear".

So I put it to you that while you concern for democracy is commendable, it is actually based on a flawed understanding of how democracy works, and is more about getting the result you want pushed through because you're terrified it will be taken away from you. Is that the sort of ball park we're in?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

No I really don't think it has. You claim that to want another referendum is to be in some way wishing to thwart democracy, when it was pointed out to you that democracy means the people have the right to change their mind you came up with some nonsense about how this was equivalent to wanting a General Election rerun if you didn't get the result you want. When it was then pointed out to you that General Elections ARE rerun every few years you decide that it's somehow me who is not understanding something.

So pray tell, what point actually is it that you are trying to make? Now I appreciate we're all busy people, so let me pull together a quick crib-sheet on this subject and why your concerns are misplaced;

You don't just rerun elections when you don't get the result you want!
Actually, General Elections are rerun every few years as it is generally accepted that every few years an electorate and circumstances have changed such that a new mandate is required. This is a widely accepted tenet of democracy in almost any democratic society in the world, from Australia to the USA, Iceland to South Africa, Russia to New Zealand. Even the EU recognise this fact and hold elections every five years as a result.

We already had a referendum, having another one would be undemocratic!
We did have a referendum, however as has been made abundantly clear the circumstances and wider global situation are much changed in June 2019 to what they were in June 2016. An aggressive, isolationist President sits in the White House. Many of the claims and promises of the Leave campaign have unravelled as the truth has emerged. Brexit is a fundamental realignment of Britain's role in not just Europe but the world as a whole, it makes sense that there is a confirmatory vote before doing that as the public should have the right to change their mind. Especially the many people too young to vote in 2016 who will be more affected by most than how this plays out. And besides all this we had one in 1975 anyway, so all this talk about holding more referendums on the same issue being bad is lost by those trying it even before it's begun.

We have to enact the results of first one before we do anything else!
Why? It was an advisory referendum (as all but a few in the UK are) and while it may provide an instruction to Parliament if Parliament feels it is not in the best interests of the country to enact the result then so be it, that is how representative democracy works. And if the people no longer wish to undertake the action laid out in 2016 why should it be forced on them against their will, as present polling suggests? "Ah", I hear you claim, "but David Cameron said whatever we chose would be enacted". Well yes he did. He also said he would eradicate the budget deficit by 2016, that he would not resign if he lost the referendum and would increase the money offered to Scotland if they voted No in their 2014 referendum. The man was clearly a serial liar. Indeed even the pro-Leave side told us to ignore anything Cameron (and others) said as they were peddling "Project Fear".

So I put it to you that while you concern for democracy is commendable, it is actually based on a flawed understanding of how democracy works, and is more about getting the result you want pushed through because you're terrified it will be taken away from you. Is that the sort of ball park we're in?

What a load of old drivel to basically point out you aren't happy with the consensus of the British public and demand a re-run.

 

[Two Professors]

Johnson shouldn't be allowed to run, pure and simple. If he can't debate his colleagues or take questions from the press (who on the whole swoon at his buffonery) then what hope is he as the person to lead our country?!

It's not really failing to debate,it's a question of the platform.Channel 4?Would have had a wider audience on CBeebies.

 

[the right footed denilson]

This is great, from Guardian comments section.....

When he was at Eton in the early 1980s, Boris Johnson did something that seems to have set the tone for the rest of his adult life.

Cast in the title role of a production of Shakespeare’s Richard II, he didn’t bother to learn his part.

The character of Richard II has 758 lines in his eponymously titled play. The part requires the actor to be on stage for most of the two-and-a-half hours running time. You can’t ‘wing’ Richard II. But Boris Johnson tried.

Pasting his lines on bits of paper about the place he hoofed the speeches and made up the rest – throwing in jokes whenever there was an awkward silence.

His father Stanley, who was in the audience, thought it was all ‘a hoot’. Nobody else did.
The other children who had spent hours attending rehearsals and learning their parts saw their hard work reduced to the ‘Boris show’. The headmaster, Eric Anderson, was furious.

Until then, Johnson had been Eton’s golden child. Known to all, adored by teachers and students alike. But, his arrogant, self-serving, indolent turn as Richard II was the last straw.

When, in his final year, he was not made School Captain, he unleashed an epic sulk prompting his housemaster to write in his end of term report: “I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.”

In the three decades since, nobody has better summed up his character. Boris Johnson gets what Boris Johnson wants and stuff anyone who gets in the way.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

What a load of old drivel to basically point out you aren't happy with the consensus of the British public and demand a re-run.

It was a very well written post that outlines how so many of us feel on this issue

 

[the right footed denilson]

It's not really failing to debate,it's a question of the platform.Channel 4?Would have had a wider audience on CBeebies.

It's failing to debate.
It doesn't matter if they were flown out to the Love Island Island and made to debate around the pool, very few people will be watching.
What does matter is that that arrogant **** does what is expected of any potential Prime Minister.

 

[Two Professors]

It was a very well written post that outlines how so many of us feel on this issue

Better luck next time.Or the time after that.Or the time after that.Or the time after that.

 

[Two Professors]

It's failing to debate.
It doesn't matter if they were flown out to the Love Island Island and made to debate around the pool, very few people will be watching.
What does matter is that that arrogant **** does what is expected of any potential Prime Minister.

Made to debate?We don't live in Pyongyang.He decided to debate where the widest audience will get to hear him.His choice,not yours.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

This is great, from Guardian comments section.....

Aye, we are certainly watching pure, naked ambition at work here. Boris is about to rise to the highest level a civilian can reach in our nation, for the simple purpose of attaining the highest level, and nothing more.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

It was a very well written post that outlines how so many of us feel on this issue

Yes it is a well written post for those that cannot stomach defeat. Re-run! We demand it! It's our right! You had your vote, you lost, get over it.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Gisela Stuart, a Labour MP campaigning for Brexit, said: “Another day, another threat from those trying to intimidate the British people into voting to remain in the failing EU. These extraordinary comments are a new low.”

Your unelected friends in the EU treat us with contempt: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/british-deserters-will-face-the-consequences-warns-eus-juncker/?fbclid=IwAR3KvFKBof0H43fG8zrEIpiDc_94--2Wb2h9s9LWlp-YYWJsbYKbnDYvIK8

The fact is, this is the beginning of the end for the EU, they cannot afford not to have us paying for Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Poland, etc., etc.

 

[the right footed denilson]

Made to debate?We don't live in Pyongyang.He decided to debate where the widest audience will get to hear him.His choice,not yours.

Huh? I clearly said 'failing to debate', unless you're talking about my stupid, hypothetical reference to Love Island.
It is failing to debate and it is about moral obligation. Johnson is utterly, utterly immoral. And to defend him, even on semantics and even out out of boredom or for arguments sake, is a rather strange thing to do.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Huh? I clearly said 'failing to debate', unless you're talking about my stupid, hypothetical reference to Love Island.
It is failing to debate and it is about moral obligation. Johnson is utterly, utterly immoral. And to defend him, even on semantics and even out out of boredom or for arguments sake, is a rather strange thing to do.

I feel quite confident he won't win a two horse race. I think the Tories will well and truly give him a wide berth. Although if he was up against Gove, then God REALLY help us!

 

[Mellotron]

No I really don't think it has. You claim that to want another referendum is to be in some way wishing to thwart democracy, when it was pointed out to you that democracy means the people have the right to change their mind you came up with some nonsense about how this was equivalent to wanting a General Election rerun if you didn't get the result you want. When it was then pointed out to you that General Elections ARE rerun every few years you decide that it's somehow me who is not understanding something.

So pray tell, what point actually is it that you are trying to make? Now I appreciate we're all busy people, so let me pull together a quick crib-sheet on this subject and why your concerns are misplaced;

You don't just rerun elections when you don't get the result you want!
Actually, General Elections are rerun every few years as it is generally accepted that every few years an electorate and circumstances have changed such that a new mandate is required. This is a widely accepted tenet of democracy in almost any democratic society in the world, from Australia to the USA, Iceland to South Africa, Russia to New Zealand. Even the EU recognise this fact and hold elections every five years as a result.

We already had a referendum, having another one would be undemocratic!
We did have a referendum, however as has been made abundantly clear the circumstances and wider global situation are much changed in June 2019 to what they were in June 2016. An aggressive, isolationist President sits in the White House. Many of the claims and promises of the Leave campaign have unravelled as the truth has emerged. Brexit is a fundamental realignment of Britain's role in not just Europe but the world as a whole, it makes sense that there is a confirmatory vote before doing that as the public should have the right to change their mind. Especially the many people too young to vote in 2016 who will be more affected by most than how this plays out. And besides all this we had one in 1975 anyway, so all this talk about holding more referendums on the same issue being bad is lost by those trying it even before it's begun.

We have to enact the results of first one before we do anything else!
Why? It was an advisory referendum (as all but a few in the UK are) and while it may provide an instruction to Parliament if Parliament feels it is not in the best interests of the country to enact the result then so be it, that is how representative democracy works. And if the people no longer wish to undertake the action laid out in 2016 why should it be forced on them against their will, as present polling suggests? "Ah", I hear you claim, "but David Cameron said whatever we chose would be enacted". Well yes he did. He also said he would eradicate the budget deficit by 2016, that he would not resign if he lost the referendum and would increase the money offered to Scotland if they voted No in their 2014 referendum. The man was clearly a serial liar. Indeed even the pro-Leave side told us to ignore anything Cameron (and others) said as they were peddling "Project Fear".

So I put it to you that while you concern for democracy is commendable, it is actually based on a flawed understanding of how democracy works, and is more about getting the result you want pushed through because you're terrified it will be taken away from you. Is that the sort of ball park we're in?

Stop hitting him, he's already dead!

 

[the right footed denilson]

I feel quite confident he won't win a two horse race. I think the Tories will well and truly give him a wide berth. Although if he was up against Gove, then God REALLY help us!

The Tory membership though. Imagine?!
Any of them with half a brain will realise that if he get's in, the Tories are out.
Stewart, on the other hand, I think Labour would be concerned about him. The Tories do well even though they're all repulsive, it's scary to think how they might do with someone who seems quite decent in power.
I see a couple of the Momentum backed websites have released recent negative opinion pieces about Stewart. This is them getting in some early punches i'd reckon.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

No I really don't think it has. You claim that to want another referendum is to be in some way wishing to thwart democracy, when it was pointed out to you that democracy means the people have the right to change their mind you came up with some nonsense about how this was equivalent to wanting a General Election rerun if you didn't get the result you want. When it was then pointed out to you that General Elections ARE rerun every few years you decide that it's somehow me who is not understanding something.

So pray tell, what point actually is it that you are trying to make? Now I appreciate we're all busy people, so let me pull together a quick crib-sheet on this subject and why your concerns are misplaced;

You don't just rerun elections when you don't get the result you want!
Actually, General Elections are rerun every few years as it is generally accepted that every few years an electorate and circumstances have changed such that a new mandate is required. This is a widely accepted tenet of democracy in almost any democratic society in the world, from Australia to the USA, Iceland to South Africa, Russia to New Zealand. Even the EU recognise this fact and hold elections every five years as a result.

We already had a referendum, having another one would be undemocratic!
We did have a referendum, however as has been made abundantly clear the circumstances and wider global situation are much changed in June 2019 to what they were in June 2016. An aggressive, isolationist President sits in the White House. Many of the claims and promises of the Leave campaign have unravelled as the truth has emerged. Brexit is a fundamental realignment of Britain's role in not just Europe but the world as a whole, it makes sense that there is a confirmatory vote before doing that as the public should have the right to change their mind. Especially the many people too young to vote in 2016 who will be more affected by most than how this plays out. And besides all this we had one in 1975 anyway, so all this talk about holding more referendums on the same issue being bad is lost by those trying it even before it's begun.

We have to enact the results of first one before we do anything else!
Why? It was an advisory referendum (as all but a few in the UK are) and while it may provide an instruction to Parliament if Parliament feels it is not in the best interests of the country to enact the result then so be it, that is how representative democracy works. And if the people no longer wish to undertake the action laid out in 2016 why should it be forced on them against their will, as present polling suggests? "Ah", I hear you claim, "but David Cameron said whatever we chose would be enacted". Well yes he did. He also said he would eradicate the budget deficit by 2016, that he would not resign if he lost the referendum and would increase the money offered to Scotland if they voted No in their 2014 referendum. The man was clearly a serial liar. Indeed even the pro-Leave side told us to ignore anything Cameron (and others) said as they were peddling "Project Fear".

So I put it to you that while you concern for democracy is commendable, it is actually based on a flawed understanding of how democracy works, and is more about getting the result you want pushed through because you're terrified it will be taken away from you. Is that the sort of ball park we're in?

I admire your fluency and ability to set out a coherent argument. But I really feel that such effort is mostly wasted in that it will only draw the usual range of responses from certain quarters. These barely get beyond 'get over it' (see 95% of Leaver responses on the Brexit thread for further evidence).

 

[BLOCK F]

The Tory membership though. Imagine?!
Any of them with half a brain will realise that if he get's in, the Tories are out.
Stewart, on the other hand, I think Labour would be concerned about him. The Tories do well even though they're all repulsive, it's scary to think how they might do with someone who seems quite decent in power.
I see a couple of the Momentum backed websites have released recent negative opinion pieces about Stewart. This is them getting in some early punches i'd reckon.

'Momentum backed websites'.
Well, their negative opinion pieces about Rory Stewart are really going to be taken seriously by anyone connected with the Tory party, aren't they!