Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Goldhawk-Road]

I hope some people are hanging around to play on here for a bit. I have just started a 3 hour conference call with people from 3 companies, I have my lap top on my lap, a bottle of wine at my left hand and my iPad on my right as I will need distraction to get through this.

As always, we're here for you, Stan!

 

[ELLERS]

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC, on the Tusk outburst:

"It is quite something for Donald Tusk to have gone in like this, studs up, even though he sometimes reminisces about his time as a football hooligan in his youth."

And he rules Europe...

from a remainer

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ELLERS]

Oh goodness, this is like having a conversation with a brick. At no point where we discussing the question, 'if the electorate had known about Major's affair with Currie at the time of the 97 election, would he have lost by a larger margin?'

Post [HASHTAG]#27784[/HASHTAG], you invoked his affair with Currie by arguing "And have you forgotten that Major's premiership and Sleaze became one and the same, Major announcing a new moral Back to Basics approach while committing adultery with Edwina Curry? [sic]"

Post [HASHTAG]#27790[/HASHTAG], I reply by stating, "In truth, I'm not bothered at all by the Edwina Currie issue, but worth noting the "affair took place from 1984 to 1988, not when he was PM, and it wasn't known at the time."

Hint, in that post I explained that the affair wasn't known about at the time.

Post [HASHTAG]#27795[/HASHTAG], you (despite me already letting you know that it wasn't known about at the time) argue that "You may not be bothered by Currie, but it was rank hypocrisy and even the Tory press turned on Major. I can't believe that you're saying, after all the sleaze allegations that dominated the press, that you think Major was not a predominant cause of the problem"

Post [HASHTAG]#27797[/HASHTAG], I highlight that any sleaze at the time reported on came from others, and not Major.

Post [HASHTAG]#27807[/HASHTAG], you plough on, regardless, clearly not having read my posts: "You dismiss his adultery, but think if Thatcher had been caught in bed with another man, or Blair had, during his time as PM, cheated on Cherie. Or Cameron, or May. Do you think the media and electorate would simply dismiss it, as you are doing in your myopic defence of Honest John."

My point the whole time, was that he wasn't caught, and his sleaze (unknown) was not a factor in his demise.

Post [HASHTAG]#27809[/HASHTAG], I explicitly state that it wasn't known until 2002 that his affair had taken place.

Post [HASHTAG]#27830[/HASHTAG], presumably embarrassed, you change tack completely at this point, and argue that if known about at the time, his defeat would have been worse. I give a clear answer agreeing with this point in my next post, which you ignore (a habit!) completely, demanding that I answer the question again...

[HASHTAG]#27849[/HASHTAG] - you finally admit that you were wrong on a "timing point". The problem is, it wasn't just a timing point, we were discussing why he lost in 97, and you claimed it was down to his sleaze. It wasn't, as that wasn't known about.

The fact that you can't put your hands up and admit that you were entirely wrong about the argument you were making about why he lost in 97 is simply amazing, despite me pointing out multiple times that the affair wasn't known about.

Further, you simply won't engage on the Northern Irish point, as you know you would look foolish if we got into a debate about whether he had a significant role.

To claim that the economic recovery was all down to Clarke's work as Chancellor, and that the Prime Minister of the day had nothing to do with it and can have no credit, shows a woeful naivety as to how government in the UK works. (Post [HASHTAG]#27795[/HASHTAG] if you're going to try and deny that one too).

Yes, he led the Tories to their worst ever defeat in 97. That was multi-factorial, with reasons including the electoral system, the length of time the Tories had already been in power, the splits within the Tory party that no one could have controlled in his shoes, and the political skill of his opponent. That defeat does not mean that his record in power was poor, and that history will judge him to be a bad PM, just as his surprising and very impressive victory in 1992 does not mean he will go down as an all time great PM.

Anyone reading this thread (poor souls) will easily see that you were embarrassingly incorrect throughout, and yet don't have the ability to simply admit you were wrong, which would be far more respectful and less embarrassing than doubling down.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

from a remainer

You must log in or register to see media

I should think the Remainers like Soubry and Umunna who want a referendum re-run must have heard Tusk's comments about Brexiteers going to hell... and wept! It will hardly win voters onto the EU side

 

[ELLERS]

I hope some people are hanging around to play on here for a bit. I have just started a 3 hour conference call with people from 3 companies, I have my lap top on my lap, a bottle of wine at my left hand and my iPad on my right as I will need distraction to get through this.

I will join you with a glass of wine.

 

[Sooperhoop]

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC, on the Tusk outburst:

"It is quite something for Donald Tusk to have gone in like this, studs up, even though he sometimes reminisces about his time as a football hooligan in his youth."

And he rules Europe...

Someone needs to do a Tyrone Mings on his face...

 

[bobmid]

from a remainer

You must log in or register to see media

Zzzzz

 

[ELLERS]

I should think the Remainers like Soubry and Umunna who want a referendum re-run must have heard Tusk's comments about Brexiteers going to hell... and wept! It will hardly win voters onto the EU side

erm... pro-EU Tory Anna Soubry backed him and named Boris Johnson, David Davis and Nigel Farage as among his likely targets, for having “abdicated all responsibility”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...itish-downing-street-may-tories-a8766691.html

 

[Sooperhoop]

I hope some people are hanging around to play on here for a bit. I have just started a 3 hour conference call with people from 3 companies, I have my lap top on my lap, a bottle of wine at my left hand and my iPad on my right as I will need distraction to get through this.

I'll fall asleep before you will...

 

[Staines R's]

Oh goodness, this is like having a conversation with a brick. At no point where we discussing the question, 'if the electorate had known about Major's affair with Currie at the time of the 97 election, would he have lost by a larger margin?'

Post [HASHTAG]#27784[/HASHTAG], you invoked his affair with Currie by arguing "And have you forgotten that Major's premiership and Sleaze became one and the same, Major announcing a new moral Back to Basics approach while committing adultery with Edwina Curry? [sic]"

Post [HASHTAG]#27790[/HASHTAG], I reply by stating, "In truth, I'm not bothered at all by the Edwina Currie issue, but worth noting the "affair took place from 1984 to 1988, not when he was PM, and it wasn't known at the time."

Hint, in that post I explained that the affair wasn't known about at the time.

Post [HASHTAG]#27795[/HASHTAG], you (despite me already letting you know that it wasn't known about at the time) argue that "You may not be bothered by Currie, but it was rank hypocrisy and even the Tory press turned on Major. I can't believe that you're saying, after all the sleaze allegations that dominated the press, that you think Major was not a predominant cause of the problem"

Post [HASHTAG]#27797[/HASHTAG], I highlight that any sleaze at the time reported on came from others, and not Major.

Post [HASHTAG]#27807[/HASHTAG], you plough on, regardless, clearly not having read my posts: "You dismiss his adultery, but think if Thatcher had been caught in bed with another man, or Blair had, during his time as PM, cheated on Cherie. Or Cameron, or May. Do you think the media and electorate would simply dismiss it, as you are doing in your myopic defence of Honest John."

My point the whole time, was that he wasn't caught, and his sleaze (unknown) was not a factor in his demise.

Post [HASHTAG]#27809[/HASHTAG], I explicitly state that it wasn't known until 2002 that his affair had taken place.

Post [HASHTAG]#27830[/HASHTAG], presumably embarrassed, you change tack completely at this point, and argue that if known about at the time, his defeat would have been worse. I give a clear answer agreeing with this point in my next post, which you ignore (a habit!) completely, demanding that I answer the question again...

[HASHTAG]#27849[/HASHTAG] - you finally admit that you were wrong on a "timing point". The problem is, it wasn't just a timing point, we were discussing why he lost in 97, and you claimed it was down to his sleaze. It wasn't, as that wasn't known about.

The fact that you can't put your hands up and admit that you were entirely wrong about the argument you were making about why he lost in 97 is simply amazing, despite me pointing out multiple times that the affair wasn't known about.

Further, you simply won't engage on the Northern Irish point, as you know you would look foolish if we got into a debate about whether he had a significant role.

To claim that the economic recovery was all down to Clarke's work as Chancellor, and that the Prime Minister of the day had nothing to do with it and can have no credit, shows a woeful naivety as to how government in the UK works. (Post [HASHTAG]#27795[/HASHTAG] if you're going to try and deny that one too).

Yes, he led the Tories to their worst ever defeat in 97. That was multi-factorial, with reasons including the electoral system, the length of time the Tories had already been in power, the splits within the Tory party that no one could have controlled in his shoes, and the political skill of his opponent. That defeat does not mean that his record in power was poor, and that history will judge him to be a bad PM, just as his surprising and very impressive victory in 1992 does not mean he will go down as an all time great PM.

Anyone reading this thread (poor souls) will easily see that you were embarrassingly incorrect throughout, and yet don't have the ability to simply admit you were wrong, which would be far more respectful and less embarrassing than doubling down.

**** me bruv, you really do have too much time on your hands

 

[bobmid]

Will take my leave of absence for now. Boris Ellers cant answer the simplest of questions. First to be condescending to others or rubbish their posts but goes into hiding when its put on his toes. Typical bollockless coward. He doesn't understand a ****ing thing, the slimey weasel. Enjoy the romp people.

 

[ELLERS]

Will take my leave of absence for now. Boris Ellers cant answer the simplest of questions. First to be condescending to others or rubbish their posts but goes into hiding when its put on his toes. Typical bollockless coward. He doesn't understand a ****ing thing, the slimey weasel. Enjoy the romp people.

bye

 

[DT’s Socks]

Anybody who knows what Corbyn represents and believes in doesn’t need to see the video Ellers. Corbyn was a disciple of Tony Benn who was fanatically and very publicly anti EU, and an organisation like the EU is anathema to the true hard left, as Stainsey, or resident anarcho-syndicalist, has pointed out. His anti EU voting record since entering Parliament is spotless.

But while it isn’t news to Stainsey and myself it might be to a lot more people, including many ‘new’ pro European entrants to the Labour Party and many others who will vote Labour. If they can’t be arsed to find out what the people they vote for actually believe, when it is there all over the Internet, that’s their lookout.

It’s quite fun when you see characters like Benn and Enoch Powell and Corbyn and Rees Mogg on the same side, like the end of Animal Farm when the pigs are indistinguishable from the humans.

And what about the sheep?

 

[bobmid]

bye

Pussy. Struggling to answer. Seen right through you fella. Everyone has. Pathetic really

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

OMG I'm not going to read all that. Can't you precise it down?!!

Feel free to not. It was cathartic and I'm happy to have made it very clear to anyone following that you were entirely wrong, and then trying hard to evade being shown to be wrong. And you're still evading it by now not reading it

 

[bobmid]

Feel free to not. It was cathartic and I'm happy to have made it very clear to anyone following that you were entirely wrong, and then trying hard to evade being shown to be wrong. And you're still evading it by now not reading it

Funny cos Ellers is doing the exact same thing!
Although Goldy does answer when questioned and very well in my opinion. Ellers just hides under his covers listening to the wireless and reading the Sun.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

erm... pro-EU Tory Anna Soubry backed him and named Boris Johnson, David Davis and Nigel Farage as among his likely targets, for having “abdicated all responsibility”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...itish-downing-street-may-tories-a8766691.html

I suppose I'm not surprised, but that's Mad Anna's interpretation. Tusk's comments were addressed at anyone who "promoted Brexit". That's very wide and includes, for example, anyone on this board who argued for Brexit. May even apply to all Brexit voters. BBC think it was a planned attack by Tusk. How creating bad relations will help if we go into a no-deal, I have no idea, but there will be many, many Brits who will be all the more adamant that Tusk should have no power over their lives.

 

[bobmid]

I think tusks wording was extraordinary indeed. It certainly hasn't helped but we do get offended so easily don't we. Saying that as a non voter but now a remainer, I'm not the least offended. Tusk doesn't have any power over my life.

 

[Staines R's]

Anybody who knows what Corbyn represents and believes in doesn’t need to see the video Ellers. Corbyn was a disciple of Tony Benn who was fanatically and very publicly anti EU, and an organisation like the EU is anathema to the true hard left, as Stainsey, or resident anarcho-syndicalist, has pointed out. His anti EU voting record since entering Parliament is spotless.

But while it isn’t news to Stainsey and myself it might be to a lot more people, including many ‘new’ pro European entrants to the Labour Party and many others who will vote Labour. If they can’t be arsed to find out what the people they vote for actually believe, when it is there all over the Internet, that’s their lookout.

It’s quite fun when you see characters like Benn and Enoch Powell and Corbyn and Rees Mogg on the same side, like the end of Animal Farm when the pigs are indistinguishable from the humans.

Exactly G, and it’s beyond me sometimes that Brexit is painted as some ‘racist, foreigner hating’ position that only ‘gammon’ and old people support.
It’s truly not. It should be a Left wing position.

 

[bobmid]

I suppose I'm not surprised, but that's Mad Anna's interpretation. Tusk's comments were addressed at anyone who "promoted Brexit". That's very wide and includes, for example, anyone on this board who argued for Brexit. May even apply to all Brexit voters. BBC think it was a planned attack by Tusk. How creating bad relations will help if we go into a no-deal, I have no idea, but there will be many, many Brits who will be all the more adamant that Tusk should have no power over their lives.

What powers does he have over many British lives?