The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Pokerpops]

They all talking stone cold nonsense but I'm slightly less offended by the pair of them given the job they'll be tasked with is going to be pretty dam impossible. They'd both make horrible PM's i'm sure off it, but picking a leader from the Tory leadership race is basically the same as picking an STD, I mean fucking hell are we really here.

Lets just get Boris in there hope whoever advises him advises him well and we can ping 2 years of anything better than a total bloodbath and maybe someone more capable will finally come along who we can actually enjoy being PM, with a fait hope they might be able to do a good job. Blair and Cameron weren't especially popular but at least SOME people liked them!

Lest we forget, it was Cameron’s shocking misjudgement in allowing a referendum on our membership of the EU that brought us to the sorry state we are now in.

Blair? 

Could you give some examples of what you think was so bad about Blair? I certainly wasn’t a fan at the time and not a fan of the man since but as a (slightly) right of centre PM who ran a government with at least some social responsibility, his record just stacks up well against everyone else’s.

The devil appeared to Tony Blair in 1997 and said “Listen Tony, I can make sure you win this election and the next two beyond it. You will be the longest serving Labour PM ever. All you have to do is give me your soul and the souls of your children.”
Tony thought for a second, “My soul, and the souls of my children?”
“Yes”
“I get to win this election and the next two in return?”
“Yes”
“What’s the catch?”

He lacked any identifiable beliefs or political values. Gave us Government by opinion poll and focus group and his attempts at appeasing both sides of the political divide created problems that still remain. (PFI schools in Scotland for instance). and let’s not mention tobacco sponsorship, cash for honours, the war...

Him being godfather to Murdoch’s kid is certainly an eye opener.

I can’t see how “appeasing” is a better word to describe the situation than ‘representing’. A government that seeks to represent as many people as possible from both sides of the divide sounds OK to me.

Honours has been a problem for every PM in my lifetime, I can’t see evidence he’s worse. It’s a system that desperately needs reform.

The war is a big one and could merit hours of discussion, I’ll post thoughts as when I can.

PFI - agreed, a bad thing imo.

I guess I’m not that up to speed on tobacco sponsorship issues, I’ll take a look.

A government that acts to represent the people and serve in their best interests, is not at all the same as a government that appeases the views of the extremes at either end of the spectrum. Let alone one that attempts to appease both?

[kukushkin88]

They all talking stone cold nonsense but I'm slightly less offended by the pair of them given the job they'll be tasked with is going to be pretty dam impossible. They'd both make horrible PM's i'm sure off it, but picking a leader from the Tory leadership race is basically the same as picking an STD, I mean fucking hell are we really here.

Lets just get Boris in there hope whoever advises him advises him well and we can ping 2 years of anything better than a total bloodbath and maybe someone more capable will finally come along who we can actually enjoy being PM, with a fait hope they might be able to do a good job. Blair and Cameron weren't especially popular but at least SOME people liked them!

Lest we forget, it was Cameron’s shocking misjudgement in allowing a referendum on our membership of the EU that brought us to the sorry state we are now in.

Blair? 

Could you give some examples of what you think was so bad about Blair? I certainly wasn’t a fan at the time and not a fan of the man since but as a (slightly) right of centre PM who ran a government with at least some social responsibility, his record just stacks up well against everyone else’s.

The devil appeared to Tony Blair in 1997 and said “Listen Tony, I can make sure you win this election and the next two beyond it. You will be the longest serving Labour PM ever. All you have to do is give me your soul and the souls of your children.”
Tony thought for a second, “My soul, and the souls of my children?”
“Yes”
“I get to win this election and the next two in return?”
“Yes”
“What’s the catch?”

He lacked any identifiable beliefs or political values. Gave us Government by opinion poll and focus group and his attempts at appeasing both sides of the political divide created problems that still remain. (PFI schools in Scotland for instance). and let’s not mention tobacco sponsorship, cash for honours, the war...

Him being godfather to Murdoch’s kid is certainly an eye opener.

I can’t see how “appeasing” is a better word to describe the situation than ‘representing’. A government that seeks to represent as many people as possible from both sides of the divide sounds OK to me.

Honours has been a problem for every PM in my lifetime, I can’t see evidence he’s worse. It’s a system that desperately needs reform.

The war is a big one and could merit hours of discussion, I’ll post thoughts as when I can.

PFI - agreed, a bad thing imo.

I guess I’m not that up to speed on tobacco sponsorship issues, I’ll take a look.

A government that acts to represent the people and serve in their best interests, is not at all the same as a government that appeases the views of the extremes at either end of the spectrum. Let alone one that attempts to appease both?

Do you have any examples of an attempt to appease extremes? They were certainly very unpopular on the left, I’d assumed they were unpopular on the right as well. Wouldn’t they be widely regarded as about as centrist as you can get?

[BigAdz]

A government representing what the country wants is a good thing to me, sounds a good thing to me.........hmmm, yet you whinge so much about Brexit.

Didn't see you find too much to come back about regards the wonderful Mr Blair either.......

It’s just relentlessly pathetic. Is your understanding of things this poor in the world outside of this thread? Life must be tough.

The 2nd sentence is just trolling I assume? I’ll answer it though, just in case....I’d expect a not very bright dog to better understand my view of Blair.

I just vaguely suspect that my life is a tad better than yours, despite being a simpleton,  but as you would say, let think have some time to think about it and I will give you my thoughts later..........like anyone gives a shit......

[kukushkin88]

A government representing what the country wants is a good thing to me, sounds a good thing to me.........hmmm, yet you whinge so much about Brexit.

Didn't see you find too much to come back about regards the wonderful Mr Blair either.......

It’s just relentlessly pathetic. Is your understanding of things this poor in the world outside of this thread? Life must be tough.

The 2nd sentence is just trolling I assume? I’ll answer it though, just in case....I’d expect a not very bright dog to better understand my view of Blair.

I just vaguely suspect that my life is a tad better than yours, despite being a simpleton,  but as you would say, let think have some time to think about it and I will give you my thoughts later..........like anyone gives a shit......

Socrates doesn’t like your chances:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living

I dare we say we enjoy and want different things. I love the things I do and what I have, wouldn’t change much at all. I hope you feel the same way about your life. I obviously don’t wish you any will just because of your bizarre contribution to this thread.

[BigAdz]

A government representing what the country wants is a good thing to me, sounds a good thing to me.........hmmm, yet you whinge so much about Brexit.

Didn't see you find too much to come back about regards the wonderful Mr Blair either.......

It’s just relentlessly pathetic. Is your understanding of things this poor in the world outside of this thread? Life must be tough.

The 2nd sentence is just trolling I assume? I’ll answer it though, just in case....I’d expect a not very bright dog to better understand my view of Blair.

I just vaguely suspect that my life is a tad better than yours, despite being a simpleton,  but as you would say, let think have some time to think about it and I will give you my thoughts later..........like anyone gives a shit......

Socrates doesn’t like your chances:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living

I dare we say we enjoy and want different things. I love the things I do and what I have, wouldn’t change much at all. I hope you feel the same way about your life. I obviously don’t wish you any will just because of your bizarre contribution to this thread.

bizarre, to you = you think everything you say is great and all other contributions that dont marry up are bizarre

Pleased you are so happy with life. These statements from you are normally a prelude to one of your massive toys out the pram meltdowns!!

[MANTIS01]

feel we need to step up the grammar, punctuation and general comprehension

Shit like “I obviously don’t wish you any will” or “let think have some time to think about it” makes zero sense to me

links to ancient philosophy borderline acceptable

Anyway carry on

[kukushkin88]

feel we need to step up the grammar, punctuation and general comprehension

Shit like “I obviously don’t wish you any will” or “let think have some time to think about it” makes zero sense to me

links to ancient philosophy borderline acceptable

Anyway carry on

Agreed.

[Pokerpops]

They all talking stone cold nonsense but I'm slightly less offended by the pair of them given the job they'll be tasked with is going to be pretty dam impossible. They'd both make horrible PM's i'm sure off it, but picking a leader from the Tory leadership race is basically the same as picking an STD, I mean fucking hell are we really here.

Lets just get Boris in there hope whoever advises him advises him well and we can ping 2 years of anything better than a total bloodbath and maybe someone more capable will finally come along who we can actually enjoy being PM, with a fait hope they might be able to do a good job. Blair and Cameron weren't especially popular but at least SOME people liked them!

Lest we forget, it was Cameron’s shocking misjudgement in allowing a referendum on our membership of the EU that brought us to the sorry state we are now in.

Blair? 

Could you give some examples of what you think was so bad about Blair? I certainly wasn’t a fan at the time and not a fan of the man since but as a (slightly) right of centre PM who ran a government with at least some social responsibility, his record just stacks up well against everyone else’s.

The devil appeared to Tony Blair in 1997 and said “Listen Tony, I can make sure you win this election and the next two beyond it. You will be the longest serving Labour PM ever. All you have to do is give me your soul and the souls of your children.”
Tony thought for a second, “My soul, and the souls of my children?”
“Yes”
“I get to win this election and the next two in return?”
“Yes”
“What’s the catch?”

He lacked any identifiable beliefs or political values. Gave us Government by opinion poll and focus group and his attempts at appeasing both sides of the political divide created problems that still remain. (PFI schools in Scotland for instance). and let’s not mention tobacco sponsorship, cash for honours, the war...

Him being godfather to Murdoch’s kid is certainly an eye opener.

I can’t see how “appeasing” is a better word to describe the situation than ‘representing’. A government that seeks to represent as many people as possible from both sides of the divide sounds OK to me.

Honours has been a problem for every PM in my lifetime, I can’t see evidence he’s worse. It’s a system that desperately needs reform.

The war is a big one and could merit hours of discussion, I’ll post thoughts as when I can.

PFI - agreed, a bad thing imo.

I guess I’m not that up to speed on tobacco sponsorship issues, I’ll take a look.

A government that acts to represent the people and serve in their best interests, is not at all the same as a government that appeases the views of the extremes at either end of the spectrum. Let alone one that attempts to appease both?

Do you have any examples of an attempt to appease extremes? They were certainly very unpopular on the left, I’d assumed they were unpopular on the right as well. Wouldn’t they be widely regarded as about as centrist as you can get?

We may be getting into semantics here. I would suggest that for the leader of The Labour Party, with or without the ‘new’ tag to openly set up schemes that were designed to enrich companies isn’t a centrist policy. Equally, the willingness to sign up to the EU’s version of employment law seems to play to the Unions. Neither move was for the long term good of the country.
Centrist parties that blow with public opinion cannot be effective moulders of a country’s future. Sadly too many of the British public are too easily influenced and thus the farts from the focus groups are smelly and sometimes end in shit decisions.

[kukushkin88]

They all talking stone cold nonsense but I'm slightly less offended by the pair of them given the job they'll be tasked with is going to be pretty dam impossible. They'd both make horrible PM's i'm sure off it, but picking a leader from the Tory leadership race is basically the same as picking an STD, I mean fucking hell are we really here.

Lets just get Boris in there hope whoever advises him advises him well and we can ping 2 years of anything better than a total bloodbath and maybe someone more capable will finally come along who we can actually enjoy being PM, with a fait hope they might be able to do a good job. Blair and Cameron weren't especially popular but at least SOME people liked them!

Lest we forget, it was Cameron’s shocking misjudgement in allowing a referendum on our membership of the EU that brought us to the sorry state we are now in.

Blair?  

Could you give some examples of what you think was so bad about Blair? I certainly wasn’t a fan at the time and not a fan of the man since but as a (slightly) right of centre PM who ran a government with at least some social responsibility, his record just stacks up well against everyone else’s.

The devil appeared to Tony Blair in 1997 and said “Listen Tony, I can make sure you win this election and the next two beyond it. You will be the longest serving Labour PM ever. All you have to do is give me your soul and the souls of your children.”
Tony thought for a second, “My soul, and the souls of my children?”
“Yes”
“I get to win this election and the next two in return?”
“Yes”
“What’s the catch?”

He lacked any identifiable beliefs or political values. Gave us Government by opinion poll and focus group and his attempts at appeasing both sides of the political divide created problems that still remain. (PFI schools in Scotland for instance). and let’s not mention tobacco sponsorship, cash for honours, the war...

Him being godfather to Murdoch’s kid is certainly an eye opener.

I can’t see how “appeasing” is a better word to describe the situation than ‘representing’. A government that seeks to represent as many people as possible from both sides of the divide sounds OK to me.

Honours has been a problem for every PM in my lifetime, I can’t see evidence he’s worse. It’s a system that desperately needs reform.

The war is a big one and could merit hours of discussion, I’ll post thoughts as when I can.

PFI - agreed, a bad thing imo.

I guess I’m not that up to speed on tobacco sponsorship issues, I’ll take a look.

A government that acts to represent the people and serve in their best interests, is not at all the same as a government that appeases the views of the extremes at either end of the spectrum. Let alone one that attempts to appease both?

Do you have any examples of an attempt to appease extremes? They were certainly very unpopular on the left, I’d assumed they were unpopular on the right as well. Wouldn’t they be widely regarded as about as centrist as you can get?

We may be getting into semantics here. I would suggest that for the leader of The Labour Party, with or without the ‘new’ tag to openly set up schemes that were designed to enrich companies isn’t a centrist policy. Equally, the willingness to sign up to the EU’s version of employment law seems to play to the Unions. Neither move was for the long term good of the country.
Centrist parties that blow with public opinion cannot be effective moulders of a country’s future. Sadly too many of the British public are too easily influenced and thus the farts from the focus groups are smelly and sometimes end in shit decisions.

I think it’s fair to say you don’t have much on Blair. Can we not find better criticisms than enriching companies in a capitalist and increasingly globalised world and signing up to EU employment law (there’s nothing wrong with EU employment law and it doesn’t play to Unions at all) as a member of the EU? It’s not semantics and has nothing to do with appeasing extremes.

The last paragraph has nothing to do ‘centrist’ parties, the electorate are poorly informed and easily misled across the spectrum. Focus groups are just a sound idea, in a representative democracy investigate what the people want, without getting yourself in to the huge mess of something like a Brexit referendum.

If we’re going to criticise Blair, it has to be the war and tuition fees imo. The war is tough though, the country overwhelmingly supported it at the time and standing alongside the US no matter what was still undoubtedly the agreed UK position at the time.

[kukushkin88]

Just re-read that....in future I will be saying ‘doesn’t’ a bit more and ‘has nothing to do with’ a lot less. Apologies of course to those who feel I’ve gone too far.

[Pokerpops]

You win. My examples were weak, and clutching at straws to support my use of the word appease.

My antipathy towards him remains. He is a self-serving opportunist who used the Labour Party as a vehicle for his personal advancement. Like Kinnock before him.

[MANTIS01]

I want a PM who’s a strong leader and has courage of conviction. They know what the right strategy is and stick to it whilst being able to convince the electorate to get on board. That certainly wasn’t Blair but absolutely was Thatcher.

Just representing majority views is weak and because we’re all stupid pretty reckless too.

Before the referendum if we had a strong wizard who set out a compelling case for Remain we never enter the twilight zone.

[aaron1867]

Labour not doing great in the polls by the looks of it. I suppose that’s where indecision gets you. It says something when I wouldn’t for vote for Labour and would absolutely protest vote against them with the Brexit Party.

[Pokerpops]

I want a PM who’s a strong leader and has courage of conviction. They know what the right strategy is and stick to it whilst being able to convince the electorate to get on board. That certainly wasn’t Blair but absolutely was Thatcher.

Just representing majority views is weak and because we’re all stupid pretty reckless too.

Before the referendum if we had a strong wizard who set out a compelling case for Remain we never enter the twilight zone.

I can’t find anything there that I can disagree with. I might add the word logical between strong and wizard, but, meh. Good post.

[4KSuited]

Kukushkin:
“ If we’re going to criticise Blair, it has to be the war and tuition fees imo. The war is tough though, the country overwhelmingly supported it at the time and standing alongside the US no matter what was still undoubtedly the agreed UK position at the time. “

The country supported the war because they believed Blair’s lies about WOMD

I don’t recall a survey that asked the public whether we should stand alongside the US no matter what. It was Blair who seemed to make that decision. Or do you have evidence?