It's really not, the philosophy behind it bares quite a lot of strong parallels, one major thing to point out is the motivations for final outcomes are not comparable.
Precisely. If you ignore the motivation for final outcomes then propaganda is just propaganda. What’s with all these comparisons between Johnson’s administration and dictatorships and Nazism? Johnson may be an oaf but that’s about it. Lying or reneging on promises? Changing personal convictions and morals? That’s a prerequisite of political life. Just ask Jo Swindle her Nambies. Dictatorship? Doesn’t that begin with riding roughshod over the democratic process? Where did that start?
He is definitely trying to ride roughshod over the democratic process, sacking democratically elected politicians for not voting with the PM, something he had done himself only a few months previous. Deceiving both the queen and, well anyone who would pay him any attention. I'm certainly not suggesting he is akin to what the Nazi's were trying to do, I am however suggesting the strategy behind the propaganda used to influence and deceive are straight out of Goebbels methodology.
He’s doing political stuff, Will. If we don’t like him we can vote him out of office and put Corbyn in.
I'd courteously disagree that the propaganda promoted by the conservative party and some of his actions within office constitute political stuff, but people are going to see things from different viewpoints. Ideally I wouldn't want Corbyn he supports leaving the EU and I find him quite ineffective despite agreeing with a lot of his ideologies, and as I've mentioned before nobody in history has had a bigger smear campaign mostly based on serious inaccuracies as Corbyn has.
In Brexit history it started with May repeatedly trying to put through her already rejected deal, and Boris has taken it further by illegally shutting down parliament, and trying anything else he thinks he may get away with.
If it’s not political stuff then what is it, please? Personally, I think Corbyn and his allies’ ideas are scary as ****. I hope as much muck sticks to stop these people getting anywhere near office. Once again, we voted democratically to leave the EU. Why are so many on here only supporters of democracy when the outcome supports their own political standpoint? Any argument that a second referendum is needed because the public mood has changed is undemocratic and tedious in my opinion. Most Leavers on here it would seem support a democracy that delivers on their own ideals. Personally, I’m Johnson’s shoes I’d request an extension and then hold a GE and campaign on a platform of Brexit in whatever form by 31st March 2020 latest. Swindle has made her bed. Nobody knows what the hell Corbyn stands for as far as Brexit is concerned. Three boxes: Brexit, No Brexit and Who The **** Knows. That’d sort it. And you know what? Whatever the outcome I’ll live with it.
Which of Corbyn and his allies ideas are scary as ****? Re Johnson's shoes, he may well request another GE but as he sacked off his majority and currently it's of no interest of the opposition as the advantage politically is to just oppose anything they don't agree with and it will be blocked
Go back through my posts on this thread and you’ll find one about them. The opposition want to avoid No Deal by getting an extension from the EU. I say request it. There is then no reason whatsoever for declining a GE other than the knowledge that you’d be trounced and Johnson’s minority government is more fun. It’s easier to sit on the opposition benches and shout everything down than come up with backable solutions of one’s own.
It's Johnson that has to request an extension, not the opposition. Once that is in place, there will be a GE. Johnson, unable (or unwilling) to get a deal, will have to campaign for No Deal and will lose. (in my humble opinion)
So democracy is confined to one days voting 3 years ago ? Would you have an election and then have a government forming as a consequence of that election 3 years later - without once thinking that the common opinion might have changed ? It is up to you to have an active majority in favour of change ie. the majority of the electorate - you do not have that and never have had. Quite simply because non voters can be seen as being generally ok with the status quo. Democracy is a process not a product - and it would be undemocratic for the UK to leave at a time when the majority are not in favour of that step.
Enough to say that we have different interpretations of democracy Uber ! At any rate it is not a static thing confined to one point in time which stands for all who come later.
In my interpretation we don’t hold a referendum and then fail to implement the outcome because it’s either too difficult or we disagree with the result. If there was a second referendum that came out (say) 55/45 in favour of Remain you’d feel vindicated, victorious and another word beginning with V.... Vagisil! You’d feel Vagisil! Likewise, if (Gawd forbid) the Nambies win the next GE with 45% of the vote on an 80% turnout, you’d get your wish off the back of 36% of the vote. You’d have no argument from me because that’s the political framework upon which this country operates. Shame others aren’t as respectful. Afterthought: perhaps we should have GEs midway through a government’s fixed term so we know whether they’ll potentially be replaced after 5 years or get another term? Then, depending upon how the government and the government-elect behave during the remaining term of office, we could have another GE to decide whether the original GE produced a twee outcome or not. Then we could overturn the whole thing. Yes, it’s a **** idea. Anybody got a Mogadon?
The difference is that we know what 'remain' means - whereas the leave vote meant many different things to different people. During the campaign itself the Norway solution was being touted by many leave campaigners as a realistic option. Had it really been a hard Brexit that people wanted ie. slam the doors and storm away, then it would have been done the day after the referendum. The fact that Article 50 was brought into play implied that a deal was wanted - apparently the EU would fall over themselves to give us this on our terms - during the referendum it was implied that we could pick and choose what we wanted. Did they really vote to slam the doors on their best customers, and suppliers, in one fell swoop ? If the answer to that is no then hard Brexit was never the favoured choice of the electorate.
