Belz...
Fiend God
Of course it did, and then their nationality changed.
No, the reality changed.
I'm asking you why you bring it up. How about answering my question instead of being condescending?
- Status
Of course it did, and then their nationality changed.
No, the reality changed.
I'm asking you why you bring it up. How about answering my question instead of being condescending?
Actually I am very interested in the way that the Conservatives are saying that there is no need to hold a general election not because we have fixed term parliaments but because they were elected on a manifesto and they are going to deliver that manifesto. So a watch this space approach to potential broken manifesto promises might be interesting like their very first manifesto promise.
"keep our economy secure by running a surplus so that we start paying down our debts"
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
"keep our economy secure by running a surplus so that we start paying down our debts"
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
Last edited:
The passport-issuing level moved down a rung, from the UK to, finally, the Republic of Ireland. But the level of national collectivity with which they identified themselves did not change. And that identification is what we have been discussing.
Because it's manifestly relevant, and I choose to bring it up. I hope that answer is sufficiently uncondescending.
The Don hypothetically wound the clock forward some years. I responded as though assessing things at that timeframe.
And Francesca R didn't; she was questioning your judgement. It was her grammar you were objecting to, not The Don's.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
But their identity didn't necessarily change. That's the difference between the two things and why it's possible for identity and 'reality' to differ sometimes to use your term.
Not so, I was referring to the fact that I was making a prediction, not a statement of how things are now.
Francesca R
Girl
They broke that one the previous time as well, and didn't have an early election, and got back in at the scheduled one.
I doubt many voters have affixed the economic legitimacy of the tories onto a positive general government balance in any year. Shrinking negative one maybe.
Last edited:
Yes but the legitimacy of that Prime Minister could not be questioned as he was the Prime Minister elected both by the MPs and by his party and the electorate could and did question him at various hustings and debates on the manifesto during the General Election. This time Theresa May and he party are claiming that even though only approx 190 people voted for her that because they were elected on that manifesto and the intention is to carry that manifesto out, there is no need to even consider another election.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I was trying to lift a big, big piece of oak into place at lunchtime with Dead Ringers on in the background. I dropped it twice through laughing. I had to turn the radio off to make sure I didn't hurt myself.
I think I've got round to the episode you were talking about. It's brilliant!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07j7nvf
Thanks Susan!
angrysoba
Philosophile
Yeah, I don't understand this bewilderment that the Prime Minister is not elected in a separate poll to the rest of the House of Commons. She is not the President of the United States - she is first among equals in a Cabinet of ministers and she is elected as an MP by her constituency (in most cases).
Yeah, Netherlands too, and Belgium ... pretty much the whole Atlantic coast of the EU will seek a piece of the British financial pie. It's hard to see how Theresa May can prevent this by keeping A50 locked up for a few more months.
UK is in a dangerous predicament. If it doesn't negotiate a Norway-style deal, it stands to loose a great deal of economy. If it does, a great majority of electorate (most of those who voted Leave, plus all who voted Remain) will not be happy at all. Furthermore, if it doesn't enter with a clear mandate and intention to negotiate a Norway-style deal it will loose this segment of the economy regardless.
If it does and if it's clear the new government will negotiate a deal like that come hell or high water ... well, let's just say Merkel et.al. have been known to exploit distress in their favor in the past.
On the upside, maybe UK will finally enter Shengen area as a result.
McHrozni
Ha!
We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market
Page 74. So it's either another referendum, or a Norway-style deal - the one that keeps nearly all of the downsides of being in the EU and only some of the upsides, that will be disliked by pretty much everyone. I'm sure the EU will be delighted.
McHrozni
Not this Bremainer - I'd see it as the least worst way forward.
Personally I think that will be unacceptable politically to the Conservative Party and we'll be out-out-out (out of the EU, out of the EEA and the way that May is so anti ECHR out of the council of Europe so we can have the death penalty back - so beloved of the blue rinse brigade) and damn the consequences
The present situation is a plain crisis in which the general legitimacy of the current system has been brought into question, and in my belief it calls for a renewal of popular mandate as soon as may be. If the PM holds office (ex officio as Party leader) by the will of the MPs and not the electorate, then he should not be removed, let alone seek to remove himself, as party leader, in consequence of an act of the electorate. But he has done exactly that.
He did not lose the confidence of Tory MPs, but of the electorate in a popular referendum. This is an anomalous situation, which has NOT occurred twelve times in the last century, or whatever.
On the other side: Corbyn was appointed Labour leader in consequence of a vote of the membership of his party, NOT of Labour MPs. He has not seen fit to resign but is resisting removal. In that case it seems subversive of the LP constitution for the MPs to assert that they, and not the members of the party, should have the power to remove him. Why then have a membership vote at all?
In short, the circumstances of the present situation are highly unusual; and they call for a renewal of the legitimacy of the incumbent political establishment.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Not this Bremainer - I'd see it as the least worst way forward.
Personally I think that will be unacceptable politically to the Conservative Party and we'll be out-out-out (out of the EU, out of the EEA and the way that May is so anti ECHR out of the council of Europe so we can have the death penalty back - so beloved of the blue rinse brigade) and damn the consequences
If the question were put to the British public (the death penalty that is), what do you think they would say? From what I can gather, in the past large majorities favored it, but more recently it is close to 50/50 and varies from poll to poll.
Another one of those issues where the "elites" and the "masses" appear to differ.
Last edited:
I have always thought that it should be Scotland Wales NI and probably 5 - 7 English regions. Significant devolution of powers to English regions. The UK government would then be responsible for defence foreign affairs and some elements of national co-ordination including constitutional law. Regionalising England would allow for the disparity in issues between e.g. London and the Peninsula.
Let the tabloid press loose with stories of Islamic fundamentalists killing "our brave lads", "evil" child killers and so on. Make it about what you would want if your nearest and dearest were tortured and killed in the most depraved way and that 50/50 can be quickly skewed.
Issues of false convictions will be swept under the carpet, the costs and timescales of execution will be played down to portray it as a cheap and quick way to deliver JUSTICE !!!!1!!!!1!!!1.
- Status