Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
[citation needed] for "working class" and "en masse" and indeed their reasons for voting. Last I heard the new tory voters mostly cited Brexit.
You want a list of the safe Labour seats that turned Tory? Really?
No, I want you to prove that it was the working class that changed how they were voting (rather than, say, the elderly) and that they did so in large numbers ("en masse") and that they did so in rejection of "corbynite socialism" (sic), rather than over Brexit, their feelings about Corbyn's other views and/or what they'd been told about him or other reasons. Plus, I think you'll find that very few of the seats would have been considered "safe". Yes, they'd been Labour a long time, but the story of their changing hands starts way before December 2019, probably around 2001. Apart from anything else, if it were all about "corbynite socialism" (sic) then wouldn't they have gone tory in 2017?
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
So sentencing us to another five years of Tory rule. Yeah, thanks for that...
Don't thank me, thank the working class in the north east who rejected en masse corbynite socialism.
[citation needed] for "working class" and "en masse" and indeed their reasons for voting. Last I heard the new tory voters mostly cited Brexit.
You want a list of the safe Labour seats that turned Tory? Really?
No, I want you to prove that it was the working class that changed how they were voting (rather than, say, the elderly) and that they did so in large numbers ("en masse") and that they did so in rejection of "corbynite socialism" (sic), rather than over Brexit, their feelings about Corbyn's other views and/or what they'd been told about him or other reasons. Plus, I think you'll find that very few of the seats would have been considered "safe". Yes, they'd been Labour a long time, but the story of their changing hands starts way before December 2019, probably around 2001. Apart from anything else, if it were all about "corbynite socialism" (sic) then wouldn't they have gone tory in 2017?
I have nothing to prove. Look at the last election, look at the opinion polls. All crying and whinging matter nowt. But if it makes you feel better, do crack on...... the electorate don't give a shit but if it makes you feel better, if its a requirement for you ....do carry on.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
If we take the news stories as true then the majority of those who leant their vote to the Torys did so to get Brexit. Boris is inept. You just need to look at his political career to see that. Having lived in London during his time as mayor I agree with the facts. Popular is not the same as good. Winning elections does not prove you are a good politician. Mr Mandid you don’t like Blair but he won by a landslide. Under your definition he must be good. You seem to under the misunderstanding that popular equilateral good. You will probably come back with the same thing you have said all along. Which is of course not true.
No, success will be measured at the ballot box. And so far he is looking rather good. Everything else is blah blah blah. Pointless and irrelevant.
I take it that no one you care about has died or is a frontline worker then...
Arsehole.
We've had a few people we support and staff get covid-19. I manage to rise above the blame Boris stuff. Let's see how it goes at the next general election eh? So far though aside from some emotionally inept people do the armchair criticism stuff I see another landslide Tory win. Of course time will tell though.
Right; three things:
1) you clearly don't know how idiotic it is to suggest that electoral success (especially given the vagaries of various systems) is the only measure of a Prime Minister
2) have a scout through the Coronavirus thread.... have a look at my posts. I know what I'm talking about... for the record I am a practicing surgeon and a molecular biologist and researcher... strictly speaking I am not a virology expert, but I reserve the right to consider myself something other than an 'armchair critic.' Of course if you want I can point you to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that is more than a little critical of your Beloved Leader
3) How did Churchill do in the 1945 election?
OTOH, you are, at least, funny.
The electorate don't care whether you are a practicing (sic) surgeon or whatever you do. What's idiotic is that you think they actually care about people patronising them. They don't. Oh Churchill lost in 1945. Won again in 1951 though.
So, you're not completely ignorant then. But I'm confused.... you said that Johnson was the 3rd best PM in 100 years with Sir Winston being the best. Then you said that the only thing that counts is winning elections but as you acknowledge, Churchill lost in '45... So he's not the best?
Oh and yes, I can't type very well on my phone. OTOH, I do understand that £45 million for a bridge that was never even started might not be a marker of success in public office...
I'm starting to think that SARS-Cov2 is smarter than you though because, unlike you, it's completely unaffected by Johnson's lies, bluster and unjustified confidence.... and thousands of people are dead as a consequence. Including a neonatal consultant I used to work with.
The real problem with your argument is not that it is fatuous, though it is. The real problem is not that it is self-contradictory, though it is. The real problem is not that you have failed to justify your assertion that only electoral success matters, though you have. No, the real problem is that whilst all 3 of those things are true, you seem to be totally incapable of appreciating any of them.
It really is a popcorn night...
AFZ
It doesnt matter though, what you think, your appeals to emotion, you're "but I'm a well paid surgeon, earning stacks of money" stuff. It's all completely irrelevant, Boris bashing, that too. The electorate reject it. Surely you have a degree of intelligence to see this.
Surely someone with "a degree of intelligence" should have the wit to recognize @alienfromzog's medical and scientific credentials (not to mention the wit to put apostrophes where they belong, among other issues in writing basic English) when it comes to speaking of a pandemic. Winning an election is hardly the only measurement of success; were it otherwise, George W. Bush would count among the great presidents of the United States. (Hint: He doesn't - although he looks awfully good compared to Donald Trump.)
Winning an election is hardly the only measurement of success; were it otherwise, George W. Bush would count among the great presidents of the United States. (Hint: He doesn't - although he looks awfully good compared to Donald Trump.)
Trump would have to be in office for a very long time to match Dubya's kills.
In days gone by, I have not had a great deal of time for the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon.
Today I am deeply relieved that I live in Scotland.
I mean WTF: seemingly Raab said on BBC breakfast "You can drive as far as you want to drive to go and walk in a park or a particular area that you’re fond of as long as you maintain the social distancing."
That's going to go down well in areas like Cumbria or Devon & Cornwall etc... see earlier comments about local capacity. Mountain rescue teams & coastguard teams were seeing an increase in call-out over the weekends and saying every extra one put themselves & the local emergency services under pressure.
Raab said on BBC breakfast "You can drive as far as you want to drive to go and walk in a park or a particular area that you’re fond of as long as you maintain the social distancing."
That's going to go down well in areas like Cumbria or Devon & Cornwall etc....
Even more confusing in Wales or Scotland where you CAN'T drive to beauty spots ... Will the police start checking vehicle registrations as they come across the border? https://tinyurl.com/y77nhwtd
There have also been problems with second-home owners trying to get round the rules.
Raab said on BBC breakfast "You can drive as far as you want to drive to go and walk in a park or a particular area that you’re fond of as long as you maintain the social distancing."
That's going to go down well in areas like Cumbria or Devon & Cornwall etc....
Even more confusing in Wales or Scotland where you CAN'T drive to beauty spots ... Will the police start checking vehicle registrations as they come across the border? https://tinyurl.com/y77nhwtd
There have also been problems with second-home owners trying to get round the rules.
Well indeed : though he (Raab) is also reported to have said "But obviously, if you’re going from one part of the UK to another, so if you’re going from England to Wales or from Scotland to Wales and different rules are in place because the devolved administrations take a different approach you need to be very mindful of the regulations that they’ve got in place."
There have been suggestions in the media here that the Border will be policed & trespassers prosecuted folk turned back, but I can't find anything from Police Scotland confirming that (though I have seen pictures of cop cars in strategic places on the A74/A68 over the weekend).
May I quote Enoch Powell, as we are in Hell? 'Every political career ends in failure.'
But no matter. Baldrick/Boris has a Cunning Plan, and all will be well.
There have been suggestions in the media here that the Border will be policed & trespassers prosecuted folk turned back, but I can't find anything from Police Scotland confirming that (though I have seen pictures of cop cars in strategic places on the A74/A68 over the weekend).
To get slightly less hellish for a moment, there was an interest article written last year by the political theorist Will Davies on Johnson as PR offensive, and both the shape and possible limitations of such an approach.
To get slightly less hellish for a moment, there was an interest article written last year by the political theorist Will Davies on Johnson as PR offensive, and both the shape and possible limitations of such an approach.
Yep. Johnson's administration is government by PR. The problem is that whilst such tactics can win over a democracy, it runs into a very hard wall of reality sooner or later.
This is the truth about Johnson's Brexit. He will only enjoy electoral success as long as his propaganda keeps working. Life gets very tough when objective reality is biased against you. The reason why Remainers have been so exercised over the past 4 years is because Johnson has committed us to a path that is not irrevocably but extremely painful and difficult to turn back from. Which is why Brexit has always been undemocratic- the aim of hardcore leavers has been to make sure the truth about what Brexit actually is remains obscured until it's too late to stop; thus removing any means of democratic accountability.
With Covid-19, it's even more stark. Thousands have died and the overarching aim of the government is to make sure the government looks good. They (possibly not consciously but who cares) will quite happily accept the political boon of governing in the time of crisis. Whilst simultaneously trying to hide their huge culpability in the causing of said crisis.
PR governments can win elections. What they can't do is govern.
With Covid-19, it's even more stark. Thousands have died and the overarching aim of the government is to make sure the government looks good. They (possibly not consciously but who cares) will quite happily accept the political boon of governing in the time of crisis. Whilst simultaneously trying to hide their huge culpability in the causing of said crisis.
PR governments can win elections. What they can't do is govern.
You are right, but I'm struck by the following:
"Johnson now has plenty of informational ammunition has his fingertips, via both the Conservative Party and the government. But the most valuable ingredient, unprecedented in the UK, is a set of newspapers that seem willing to serve as his tools, in persuading the country to feel positively towards a set of policies that will almost certainly make most people worse off. As positivity is elevated to a quasi-wartime national obligation, and as disdain is heaped on anyone who ‘talks Britain down’, reality itself starts to become nationalised."
This remains the case in the UK, and in some ways even more so now than then. So I wonder to what extent that it actually matters that he can't govern (to his fate in government that is -- not to the rest of us, for whom it matters a great deal).
We don't see much of him on Canadian TV. But he has an odd way of speaking, as if he's got excessive muscle tone, jerky movement, jumpy-seeming in body. Over-confident in mind which guided him to decisiveness in the wrong direction. As if his sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are fighting each other. Like a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same room fighting it out. Or a furnace and air conditioner.
He was awful today. Keir Starmer asked him precise questions; he answered none of them but just blustered about "good British commonsense". Meanwhile - assuming this video is genuine - his contradictory advice has already been disastrous: https://tinyurl.com/ychzpjjz
I hope they checked with work first to confirm that business was open and they were expected. If they'd got in to find the building closed it would have been a wasted journey, not mention a wasted risk of infection or infecting. I can't believe many businesses were ready to open after a speech last night - at our place we're about two weeks into devising a plan to allow limited work in the building when permitted, and probably a couple of weeks to go to finalise that and put any modifications to the building in place (one part of the plan being to put all the fire doors on magnetic locks so that they can be left open, but will close automatically if the fire alarm goes off). And, that's in Scotland where the Scottish government policy for what will be needed for businesses to reopen has been open for public comment for a couple of weeks - so, not finalised but enough to know what will generally be required.
He was awful today. Keir Starmer asked him precise questions; he answered none of them but just blustered about "good British commonsense". Meanwhile - assuming this video is genuine - his contradictory advice has already been disastrous: https://tinyurl.com/ychzpjjz
Oh yes.
Time to start praying for London hospital staff... it's so painful to watch. You look at pictures like this, you know it means thousands more cases and many more deaths. You desperately want to be wrong. Talk about a slow-motion car crash.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
If we take the news stories as true then the majority of those who leant their vote to the Torys did so to get Brexit. Boris is inept. You just need to look at his political career to see that. Having lived in London during his time as mayor I agree with the facts. Popular is not the same as good. Winning elections does not prove you are a good politician. Mr Mandid you don’t like Blair but he won by a landslide. Under your definition he must be good. You seem to under the misunderstanding that popular equilateral good. You will probably come back with the same thing you have said all along. Which is of course not true.
I didn't mind Blair at all, good politician. You seem to misunderstand that politicians you personally don't like/agree with = bad.
The Johnson creature isn't governing. He's chasing approval. It's fine for a labrador puppy. Less good for a prime minister. AKA STFU and look at what he's doing, not our stupid, supine public.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Yes, we have a democracy. Of which voting at elections is but a small part of the democratic process. We also have other campaigning, petitions, protests (when it becomes safe to do so, and at present it isn't safe for anyone to return to work or play a round of golf let alone gather for a protest), mouthing off on the internet about how awfully the government is acting, newspapers run exposes of corruption and incompetence and all the rest. If you object to any of that then you are an anti-democratic supporter of tyranny.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Please come back with a coherent, internally consistent argument. Because until you do, this is both boring and pointless.
If we take the news stories as true then the majority of those who leant their vote to the Torys did so to get Brexit. Boris is inept. You just need to look at his political career to see that. Having lived in London during his time as mayor I agree with the facts. Popular is not the same as good. Winning elections does not prove you are a good politician. Mr Mandid you don’t like Blair but he won by a landslide. Under your definition he must be good. You seem to under the misunderstanding that popular equilateral good. You will probably come back with the same thing you have said all along. Which is of course not true.
I didn't mind Blair at all, good politician. You seem to misunderstand that politicians you personally don't like/agree with = bad.
Subjective and accurate is better than objective and wrong.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Yes, we have a democracy. Of which voting at elections is but a small part of the democratic process. We also have other campaigning, petitions, protests (when it becomes safe to do so, and at present it isn't safe for anyone to return to work or play a round of golf let alone gather for a protest), mouthing off on the internet about how awfully the government is acting, newspapers run exposes of corruption and incompetence and all the rest. If you object to any of that then you are an anti-democratic supporter of tyranny.
I'm not sure I'm mouthing off about how awful the government is acting. Although there's a fair amount of that on this thread.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Please come back with a coherent, internally consistent argument. Because until you do, this is both boring and pointless.
If we take the news stories as true then the majority of those who leant their vote to the Torys did so to get Brexit. Boris is inept. You just need to look at his political career to see that. Having lived in London during his time as mayor I agree with the facts. Popular is not the same as good. Winning elections does not prove you are a good politician. Mr Mandid you don’t like Blair but he won by a landslide. Under your definition he must be good. You seem to under the misunderstanding that popular equilateral good. You will probably come back with the same thing you have said all along. Which is of course not true.
I didn't mind Blair at all, good politician. You seem to misunderstand that politicians you personally don't like/agree with = bad.
Subjective and accurate is better than objective and wrong.
But almost always unprovable unless dealing with solid facts. And the facts I offer are the Dec 2019 election result and the present opinion polls and approval ratings.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Yes, we have a democracy. Of which voting at elections is but a small part of the democratic process. We also have other campaigning, petitions, protests (when it becomes safe to do so, and at present it isn't safe for anyone to return to work or play a round of golf let alone gather for a protest), mouthing off on the internet about how awfully the government is acting, newspapers run exposes of corruption and incompetence and all the rest. If you object to any of that then you are an anti-democratic supporter of tyranny.
I'm not sure I'm mouthing off about how awful the government is acting. Although there's a fair amount of that on this thread.
Well clearly you either think the government is doing a good job, or at least not so badly that you think it's worth while making a fuss. Which makes you a moron content to let government incompetence kill 10s of thousands of people without so much as a "could have done better".
But, regardless my point still stands. Is the right to mouth off on the internet about how bad the government is doing, by those who consider the government to be a complete shambles that makes complete shambles cry "don't associate us with that mess", an integral part of the democratic process?
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
Except that's not what you've said. You've been thoroughly inconsistent.
Your argument is also fatuous because it implies that real-world outcomes of bad but popular policies don't matter. However, until you get to a consistent argument, there's no point in discussing that.
And finally, while I have no illusions about the size of my potential audience, one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that people can change their minds - that on important issues, if you believe something, you should try to persuade other people of that position. It's called democratic debate. But what you've just posited it that there's no point because Johnson is popular right now, he must be right. I mean, it's nearly as idiotic as might equals right. Now I happen to know a little about viral epidemiology thus I can see how government policy is wrong. Blatantly wrong.
Not because it is popular or unpopular but because it will result in more deaths. Is that not objective enough for you?
As I said, please come back with an argument that's at least internally consistent, because until you do, you're just making yourself look silly.
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
The point you're missing is this: those election results and the inbetween opinion polls don't happen in a void. People don't wake up on the morning of an election and quickly scan through the party manifestos and a few briefing papers, then walk briskly to the polling station to mark their choice with a pencil. Neither are they contacted by pollsters and suddenly have to gather their thoughts to answer the questions.
Those decisions are made long before that point. By adding our voices to the demos, we seek to add our influence (individually small that it might be) to others, in the hope of steering the political discourse of the country towards our preferred policies.
This is why we discuss politics. It is not irrelevant, but in fact, necessary.
No, it's a requirement for democracy that the electorate continue to discuss what politicians do and say, criticise them and protest against what they consider wrong (or support them and protest in favour). So, we'll continue to do our democratic duty and if you don't like it I suggest giving North Korea a try.
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
Yes, we have a democracy. Of which voting at elections is but a small part of the democratic process. We also have other campaigning, petitions, protests (when it becomes safe to do so, and at present it isn't safe for anyone to return to work or play a round of golf let alone gather for a protest), mouthing off on the internet about how awfully the government is acting, newspapers run exposes of corruption and incompetence and all the rest. If you object to any of that then you are an anti-democratic supporter of tyranny.
I'm not sure I'm mouthing off about how awful the government is acting. Although there's a fair amount of that on this thread.
Well clearly you either think the government is doing a good job, or at least not so badly that you think it's worth while making a fuss. Which makes you a moron content to let government incompetence kill 10s of thousands of people without so much as a "could have done better".
But, regardless my point still stands. Is the right to mouth off on the internet about how bad the government is doing, by those who consider the government to be a complete shambles that makes complete shambles cry "don't associate us with that mess", an integral part of the democratic process?
If you want to bang on about what you think the govt has done wrong then of course that's entirely your right to do. It lacks a degree of comparison because of course we don't know how the opposition govt would have handled it or indeed you would have, had you been in a position of power beyond that of a nobody typing on t'internet. (As most of us are). Perhaps you could put yourself up for election at the next opportunity and see how you fair?
Incredible that someone can praise Boris, as he presides over mass deaths, carnage in care homes, poor equipment for health workers, etc. Reminds me of the old slogan, we who are about to die, salute thee.
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
Except that's not what you've said. You've been thoroughly inconsistent.
Your argument is also fatuous because it implies that real-world outcomes of bad but popular policies don't matter. However, until you get to a consistent argument, there's no point in discussing that.
And finally, while I have no illusions about the size of my potential audience, one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that people can change their minds - that on important issues, if you believe something, you should try to persuade other people of that position. It's called democratic debate. But what you've just posited it that there's no point because Johnson is popular right now, he must be right. I mean, it's nearly as idiotic as might equals right. Now I happen to know a little about viral epidemiology thus I can see how government policy is wrong. Blatantly wrong.
Not because it is popular or unpopular but because it will result in more deaths. Is that not objective enough for you?
As I said, please come back with an argument that's at least internally consistent, because until you do, you're just making yourself look silly.
AFZ
No, i've not been inconsistent at all. Arguments from authority are meaningless particularly from those who simply state they "know something about this". It really really doesnt matter what you think. Saying something is "blatantly wrong" is just another armchair bore thinking they are more intelligent than others. What matters is how people vote. This is fact.
Perhaps you could put yourself up for election at the next opportunity and see how you fair?
As many here will know, two members of the branch put themselves forward and the other was selected as our candidate. If not for that exercise of democracy within the party I'd have been standing in December, I'll almost certainly be standing for election at the next council elections in a couple of years.
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
The point you're missing is this: those election results and the inbetween opinion polls don't happen in a void. People don't wake up on the morning of an election and quickly scan through the party manifestos and a few briefing papers, then walk briskly to the polling station to mark their choice with a pencil. Neither are they contacted by pollsters and suddenly have to gather their thoughts to answer the questions.
Those decisions are made long before that point. By adding our voices to the demos, we seek to add our influence (individually small that it might be) to others, in the hope of steering the political discourse of the country towards our preferred policies.
This is why we discuss politics. It is not irrelevant, but in fact, necessary.
Apologies, my argument is not about silencing political discussion. It's more about the utter stupidity and pointlessness of being ultra critical. I wouldnt want to prevent it at all, its one of our (conservatives) best tactics in helping to pursuade the "middle" and the floating voters. Long may the antis spout. Absolute vote winner that one.
Perhaps you could put yourself up for election at the next opportunity and see how you fair?
As many here will know, two members of the branch put themselves forward and the other was selected as our candidate. If not for that exercise of democracy within the party I'd have been standing in December, I'll almost certainly be standing for election at the next council elections in a couple of years.
Apologies, my argument is not about silencing political discussion. It's more about the utter stupidity and pointlessness of being ultra critical. I wouldnt want to prevent it at all, its one of our (conservatives) best tactics in helping to pursuade the "middle" and the floating voters. Long may the antis spout. Absolute vote winner that one.
So you simultaneously say you want us to be critical of government, but also want to discourage us from being so critical of government? Uh huh. That's a pretty transparent tactic. And it's not difficult to see through.
And honestly? I'm absolutely certain that if there was a Labour PM at the moment, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig.
Perhaps you could put yourself up for election at the next opportunity and see how you fair?
As many here will know, two members of the branch put themselves forward and the other was selected as our candidate. If not for that exercise of democracy within the party I'd have been standing in December, I'll almost certainly be standing for election at the next council elections in a couple of years.
Nice try.
Which party? And what was the result?
Does it matter, you suggested I needed to put myself forward for elected office. Which I have confirmed I've already done. How did you do standing for election?
Comments
No, I want you to prove that it was the working class that changed how they were voting (rather than, say, the elderly) and that they did so in large numbers ("en masse") and that they did so in rejection of "corbynite socialism" (sic), rather than over Brexit, their feelings about Corbyn's other views and/or what they'd been told about him or other reasons. Plus, I think you'll find that very few of the seats would have been considered "safe". Yes, they'd been Labour a long time, but the story of their changing hands starts way before December 2019, probably around 2001. Apart from anything else, if it were all about "corbynite socialism" (sic) then wouldn't they have gone tory in 2017?
BTW, all the stuff that Mr Mandid keeps spewing out seems strangely familiar, as though it's being recycled from somewhere.
There really is nothing much one can say in return, and it appears to be pointless even to try.
Funny, I was thinking that...
Some where there is a mirror. You need to look at it and apologise.
Be astute. Lerts are getting common.
I have nothing to prove. Look at the last election, look at the opinion polls. All crying and whinging matter nowt. But if it makes you feel better, do crack on...... the electorate don't give a shit but if it makes you feel better, if its a requirement for you ....do carry on.
Trump would have to be in office for a very long time to match Dubya's kills.
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
Today I am deeply relieved that I live in Scotland.
I mean WTF: seemingly Raab said on BBC breakfast "You can drive as far as you want to drive to go and walk in a park or a particular area that you’re fond of as long as you maintain the social distancing."
That's going to go down well in areas like Cumbria or Devon & Cornwall etc... see earlier comments about local capacity. Mountain rescue teams & coastguard teams were seeing an increase in call-out over the weekends and saying every extra one put themselves & the local emergency services under pressure.
There have also been problems with second-home owners trying to get round the rules.
Well indeed : though he (Raab) is also reported to have said "But obviously, if you’re going from one part of the UK to another, so if you’re going from England to Wales or from Scotland to Wales and different rules are in place because the devolved administrations take a different approach you need to be very mindful of the regulations that they’ve got in place."
There have been suggestions in the media here that the Border will be policed & trespassers prosecuted folk turned back, but I can't find anything from Police Scotland confirming that (though I have seen pictures of cop cars in strategic places on the A74/A68 over the weekend).
But no matter. Baldrick/Boris has a Cunning Plan, and all will be well.
well, there was This person
To get slightly less hellish for a moment, there was an interest article written last year by the political theorist Will Davies on Johnson as PR offensive, and both the shape and possible limitations of such an approach.
Yep. Johnson's administration is government by PR. The problem is that whilst such tactics can win over a democracy, it runs into a very hard wall of reality sooner or later.
This is the truth about Johnson's Brexit. He will only enjoy electoral success as long as his propaganda keeps working. Life gets very tough when objective reality is biased against you. The reason why Remainers have been so exercised over the past 4 years is because Johnson has committed us to a path that is not irrevocably but extremely painful and difficult to turn back from. Which is why Brexit has always been undemocratic- the aim of hardcore leavers has been to make sure the truth about what Brexit actually is remains obscured until it's too late to stop; thus removing any means of democratic accountability.
With Covid-19, it's even more stark. Thousands have died and the overarching aim of the government is to make sure the government looks good. They (possibly not consciously but who cares) will quite happily accept the political boon of governing in the time of crisis. Whilst simultaneously trying to hide their huge culpability in the causing of said crisis.
PR governments can win elections. What they can't do is govern.
AFZ
You are right, but I'm struck by the following:
"Johnson now has plenty of informational ammunition has his fingertips, via both the Conservative Party and the government. But the most valuable ingredient, unprecedented in the UK, is a set of newspapers that seem willing to serve as his tools, in persuading the country to feel positively towards a set of policies that will almost certainly make most people worse off. As positivity is elevated to a quasi-wartime national obligation, and as disdain is heaped on anyone who ‘talks Britain down’, reality itself starts to become nationalised."
This remains the case in the UK, and in some ways even more so now than then. So I wonder to what extent that it actually matters that he can't govern (to his fate in government that is -- not to the rest of us, for whom it matters a great deal).
We don't see much of him on Canadian TV. But he has an odd way of speaking, as if he's got excessive muscle tone, jerky movement, jumpy-seeming in body. Over-confident in mind which guided him to decisiveness in the wrong direction. As if his sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are fighting each other. Like a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same room fighting it out. Or a furnace and air conditioner.
No.
Be thankful to God/god/gods that you don't see much of him on Canadian TV. Count your blessings...
Oh yes.
Time to start praying for London hospital staff... it's so painful to watch. You look at pictures like this, you know it means thousands more cases and many more deaths. You desperately want to be wrong. Talk about a slow-motion car crash.
Johnson remains useless.
AFZ
Yes! We have elections, marvellous stuff. Do remind me of the result in Dec 2019. Have a gander at the opinion polls and Boris's personal approval rates now too.
I didn't mind Blair at all, good politician. You seem to misunderstand that politicians you personally don't like/agree with = bad.
Please come back with a coherent, internally consistent argument. Because until you do, this is both boring and pointless.
AFZ
Subjective and accurate is better than objective and wrong.
I'm not sure I'm mouthing off about how awful the government is acting. Although there's a fair amount of that on this thread.
A message to yourself?
But almost always unprovable unless dealing with solid facts. And the facts I offer are the Dec 2019 election result and the present opinion polls and approval ratings.
But, regardless my point still stands. Is the right to mouth off on the internet about how bad the government is doing, by those who consider the government to be a complete shambles that makes complete shambles cry "don't associate us with that mess", an integral part of the democratic process?
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
Except that's not what you've said. You've been thoroughly inconsistent.
Your argument is also fatuous because it implies that real-world outcomes of bad but popular policies don't matter. However, until you get to a consistent argument, there's no point in discussing that.
And finally, while I have no illusions about the size of my potential audience, one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that people can change their minds - that on important issues, if you believe something, you should try to persuade other people of that position. It's called democratic debate. But what you've just posited it that there's no point because Johnson is popular right now, he must be right. I mean, it's nearly as idiotic as might equals right. Now I happen to know a little about viral epidemiology thus I can see how government policy is wrong. Blatantly wrong.
Not because it is popular or unpopular but because it will result in more deaths. Is that not objective enough for you?
As I said, please come back with an argument that's at least internally consistent, because until you do, you're just making yourself look silly.
AFZ
The point you're missing is this: those election results and the inbetween opinion polls don't happen in a void. People don't wake up on the morning of an election and quickly scan through the party manifestos and a few briefing papers, then walk briskly to the polling station to mark their choice with a pencil. Neither are they contacted by pollsters and suddenly have to gather their thoughts to answer the questions.
Those decisions are made long before that point. By adding our voices to the demos, we seek to add our influence (individually small that it might be) to others, in the hope of steering the political discourse of the country towards our preferred policies.
This is why we discuss politics. It is not irrelevant, but in fact, necessary.
If you want to bang on about what you think the govt has done wrong then of course that's entirely your right to do. It lacks a degree of comparison because of course we don't know how the opposition govt would have handled it or indeed you would have, had you been in a position of power beyond that of a nobody typing on t'internet. (As most of us are). Perhaps you could put yourself up for election at the next opportunity and see how you fair?
No, i've not been inconsistent at all. Arguments from authority are meaningless particularly from those who simply state they "know something about this". It really really doesnt matter what you think. Saying something is "blatantly wrong" is just another armchair bore thinking they are more intelligent than others. What matters is how people vote. This is fact.
Nice try.
Apologies, my argument is not about silencing political discussion. It's more about the utter stupidity and pointlessness of being ultra critical. I wouldnt want to prevent it at all, its one of our (conservatives) best tactics in helping to pursuade the "middle" and the floating voters. Long may the antis spout. Absolute vote winner that one.
Which party? And what was the result?
So you simultaneously say you want us to be critical of government, but also want to discourage us from being so critical of government? Uh huh. That's a pretty transparent tactic. And it's not difficult to see through.
And honestly? I'm absolutely certain that if there was a Labour PM at the moment, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig.