He's back to start a war on brexit

digitalscream

Brize said:

digitalscream said:

Do you honestly believe that AD bill or the Iraq war were complex political and economic issues on the same scale as leaving the EU?

Forgetting for a moment that you have no benchmark for "the will of the people", the Iraq war had broad support (in a "finger in the air" sense) from "the people" at the time. It was only later, when Blair's sins were beginning to be revealed and the campaign was a disaster, that public opinion turned against it.

No, I don't think the deaths of 200,000 civilians in Iraq is on the same scale as the UK leaving a trading bloc. FFS.

Moving the goalposts to try to win an argument? Well done.

Brize

digitalscream said:

Moving the goalposts to try to win an argument? Well done.

Eh? You were the one that said that Brexit was on a completely different scale to the Iraq war. As if the hysteria over the UK leaving a trading bloc needed highlighting.

And the idea that opposition to the Iraq war only happened after the event doesn't ring true - there was widespread public opposition leading up the vote.

digitalscream

Brize said:

digitalscream said:

Moving the goalposts to try to win an argument? Well done.

Eh? You were the one that said that Brexit was on a completely different scale to the Iraq war. As if the hysteria over the UK leaving a trading bloc needed highlighting.

And the idea that opposition to the Iraq war only happened after the event doesn't ring true - there was widespread public opposition leading up the vote.

I was talking about complexity, not casualties. If you measure any political decision against casualties, it'll lose to any decision to go to war; purely by that metric, the decisions to get involved in the two World Wars were the most disastrous ever...but the consequences of not doing so would've been worse. Do you see what I mean?

Brize

digitalscream said:

I was talking about complexity, not casualties. If you measure any political decision against casualties, it'll lose to any decision to go to war; purely by that metric, the decisions to get involved in the two World Wars were the most disastrous ever...but the consequences of not doing so would've been worse. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I take your point that leaving the EU is more complex than going to war or passing the assisted dying bill, but MPs still got both of those decisions 'wrong', in that they failed to reflect the wishes of the electorate. Of course, parliament also passed the EU Referendum Bill, which somewhat undermines the 'leave it to parliament' argument.

Had there been a referendum on Maastricht, we wouldn't be in this mess now. To take a sovereign state into political union with other sovereign states is absolutely something that should be decided by plebiscite.

Cirrus

Fretwired said:Your like Canute sitting on a throne trying to turn back the tide.

Stop everything, this is more important! Canute wasn't some deluded ruler trying to turn back the tide and failing. He was a wise ruler demonstrating to his followers that there were forces far beyond his control.

Teetonetal

Snap said:

I like Tony Blair. He's the last political heavyweight we've had, the rest have been anodyne lightweights.

With Iraq, I do think he acted genuinely in that he was convinced that going to war was the right thing to do. The war over shadowed everything else he achieved in government, and what he did for the Labour party. Labour has been on a downward tailspin since he packed in.

Love him or loathe him, Blair is good for politics. He's got clout, and people listen when he says something: just look at the reaction he's caused today. He is a "proper" poltician: he has gravitas, he talks sensibly and he is balanced and persuasive in his argument. He was the first politician who persuaded me to vote Labour, in 1997. I can't see myself even considering voting Labour again, not in the current state of the party.

I'd have him go further, and start a new political party. There are rumours that he is planning this. Who knows?

Tony Blair a political heavyweight? Really? If he had been a heavyweight he would not have supported George W.
He made spin in politics a huge force (in the UK) and left his party in a shambles with a leader that no-one apparently wanted.

Along with George W - i think he is one of the worst things that has happened to the world.

We have had a succession of awful politicians across both side of the house for a long time, though and I would agree that the current cop are down right awful and possibly incompetent. Not just in the UK but across the west. It's a worrying time.

Heartfeltdawn

Brize said:

Do you think you'd be so against referenda had the result gone the other way?

Brize, I don't operate from a particular platform so please don't attempt to paint me as a Remoaner. 

My criticism of the referendum process is fuck all to do with the result. One of my past working lives was in politics but where I had to be completely neutral. During that time I served politicians from parish level to Government level. That is the approach I still take with politics. Most political thread regulars will know that I have been more damning of Labour than any other political party over the last few years for instance. That isn't because of a Tory allegiance but based purely on quality of policy and actions. 

The biggest question over the EU referendum was why it was not made binding yet the AV referendum was. To me, it was made non-binding to allow all parties involved as much wriggle room as possible. Bad legislation is bad legislation and the EU referendum is a prime example. That opinion would be backed up by the court verdicts. 

As said previously, I would have gone for a multi-stage referendum. Something that has voting on specific issues rather than this 'in or out' approach. For example, a referendum on immigration alone would be a decidedly useful tool. 

Brize

Heartfeltdawn said:

Brize said:

Do you think you'd be so against referenda had the result gone the other way?

Brize, I don't operate from a particular platform so please don't attempt to paint me as a Remoaner. 

My criticism of the referendum process is fuck all to do with the result. 

How did you vote, out of interest?

Heartfeltdawn

Irrelevant, dear Brize. Neither platform was for me. 

Brize

Heartfeltdawn said:

Irrelevant, dear Brize. Neither platform was for me. 

So you didn't vote?

Cirrus

Brize, what conclusions would you draw if @Heartfeltdawn said he voted remain, out of interest?

Brize

Cirrus said:

Brize, what conclusions would you draw if @Heartfeltdawn said he voted remain, out of interest?

That he's not as impartial as he purports to be.

Sambostar

The opinion of anyone who didn't vote is obsolete. 

I don't harp on about the police commissioners elections or how the FPTP voting system wasn't modified to what amounted to an essentially more bias, first, second and third choice system that would have favoured the Tories even more which incidentally people wrongly remember as a vote for a PR system which it actually wasn't at all.

£2.50

Fretwired

One sick individual, now universally loathed by a nation for shafting the innocent. Pictured here with Jimmy Savile.

ICBM

Sambostar said:

I don't harp on about the police commissioners elections or how the FPTP voting system wasn't modified to what amounted to an essentially more bias, first, second and third choice system that would have favoured the Tories even more which incidentally people wrongly remember as a vote for a PR system which it actually wasn't at all.

That's absolutely true. That's why it was voted down, because people realised they were being sold a pup. But it was cleverly designed so that the issue of PR - or any form of proper electoral reform - has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future, because it's now possible to make people *believe* it was about PR. Cameron did it intentionally, because FPTP suits the Tories very well, mostly - the real puzzle is why Clegg encouraged his party to walk straight into the trap.  That's by far the worst thing the Lib Dems did in government and the one that has done the most harm to the party and the country in the long term. (And to all other small parties, as I'm very sure you're aware.)

The big mistake Cameron made is that by winning this one, and the Scottish independence referendum too, he convinced himself that he would with the EU one.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

That's absolutely true. That's why it was voted down, because people realised they were being sold a pup. But it was cleverly designed so that the issue of PR - or any form of proper electoral reform - has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future, because it's now possible to make people *believe* it was about PR. Cameron did it intentionally, because FPTP suits the Tories very well, mostly - the real puzzle is why Clegg encouraged his party to walk straight into the trap.  That's by far the worst thing the Lib Dems did in government and the one that has done the most harm to the party and the country in the long term. (And to all other small parties, as I'm very sure you're aware.)

The big mistake Cameron made is that by winning this one, and the Scottish independence referendum too, he convinced himself that he would with the EU one.

FPTP suits both main parties and gives us the myth that we get strong decisive government. They seem to avoid the fact that we don't get a government that over 50% of the population voted for so it's time for change.

I'd do four things:

1. Fund political parties from the public purse
2. Have a proper PR-based voting system
3. Have more accountable government by having a body that scrutinises manifesto pledges
4. Devolve more power to the regions

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

That's absolutely true. That's why it was voted down, because people realised they were being sold a pup. But it was cleverly designed so that the issue of PR - or any form of proper electoral reform - has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future, because it's now possible to make people *believe* it was about PR. Cameron did it intentionally, because FPTP suits the Tories very well, mostly - the real puzzle is why Clegg encouraged his party to walk straight into the trap.  That's by far the worst thing the Lib Dems did in government and the one that has done the most harm to the party and the country in the long term. (And to all other small parties, as I'm very sure you're aware.)

The big mistake Cameron made is that by winning this one, and the Scottish independence referendum too, he convinced himself that he would with the EU one.

FPTP suits both main parties and gives us the myth that we get strong decisive government. They seem to avoid the fact that we don't get a government that over 50% of the population voted for so it's time for change.

I'd do four things:

1. Fund political parties from the public purse
2. Have a proper PR-based voting system
3. Have more accountable government by having a body that scrutinises manifesto pledges
4. Devolve more power to the regions

And have a corrupt mess like Spain or Greece?

Fretwired

Evilmags said:

FPTP suits both main parties and gives us the myth that we get strong decisive government. They seem to avoid the fact that we don't get a government that over 50% of the population voted for so it's time for change.

I'd do four things:

1. Fund political parties from the public purse
2. Have a proper PR-based voting system
3. Have more accountable government by having a body that scrutinises manifesto pledges
4. Devolve more power to the regions

And have a corrupt mess like Spain or Greece?

And our politics is clean is it? Bankers give the Tories money out of the kindness of their hearts .. I don't think so. And we've seen how the Unions are in control of Corbyn's Labour.

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

Evilmags said:

FPTP suits both main parties and gives us the myth that we get strong decisive government. They seem to avoid the fact that we don't get a government that over 50% of the population voted for so it's time for change.

I'd do four things:

1. Fund political parties from the public purse
2. Have a proper PR-based voting system
3. Have more accountable government by having a body that scrutinises manifesto pledges
4. Devolve more power to the regions

And have a corrupt mess like Spain or Greece?

And our politics is clean is it? Bankers give the Tories money out of the kindness of their hearts .. I don't think so. And we've seen how the Unions are in control of Corbyn's Labour.

Everything is relative. The UK imprisons them when caught. The most corrupt councils in the UK are all Labour (Glasgow, Tower Hamlets, Liverpool )

Bridgehouse

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

Evilmags said:

FPTP suits both main parties and gives us the myth that we get strong decisive government. They seem to avoid the fact that we don't get a government that over 50% of the population voted for so it's time for change.

I'd do four things:

1. Fund political parties from the public purse
2. Have a proper PR-based voting system
3. Have more accountable government by having a body that scrutinises manifesto pledges
4. Devolve more power to the regions

And have a corrupt mess like Spain or Greece?

And our politics is clean is it? Bankers give the Tories money out of the kindness of their hearts .. I don't think so. And we've seen how the Unions are in control of Corbyn's Labour.

Everything is relative. The UK imprisons them when caught. The most corrupt councils in the UK are all Labour (Glasgow, Tower Hamlets, Liverpool )

You need to read Rotten Boroughs in Private Eye chap...