2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

In fact, 37% wanted it. So much destruction, so much loss - to appease 37% of of the electorate who still cannot define what they think they have achieved. 

Spin it as much as you like, the main issue here is that more of the electorate voted to leave than remain, as Paul Daniels said 'that's democracy'

43 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

"The Westminster political bubble was awash with speculation that Johnson's fiancee Carrie Symonds aligned with Johnson's new press secretary Allegra Stratton to oust Cain - to the displeasure of Cummings, who then threatened to resign."

 

Any evidence to support Reuters imagination?

 

In terms of evidence, unsubstantiated, but in terms of provenance, Peston has some pedigree. I can't see the FT article as it is behind a paywall.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Try and keep up. Bojo just evicted Cummings from #10.

 

Boris Johnson boots out top adviser Dominic Cummings

Source says aide’s instant departure came after he was accused of briefing against PM

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/13/dominic-cummings-has-already-left-job-at-no-10-reports

 

A quote from The Guardian?

Well we know where you stand...

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The vast majority of the electorate is not represented by this government. They have an 80 seat majority whilst receiving fewer than half the votes. They are able to deliver an agenda that suits a minority while the majority have to accept it. Do you think that this is a healthy way to run a country?

And neither is the Scots Nats, I don't see you making disparaging remarks about them. You never did like referendum results did you RR.

Just now, vogie said:

And neither is the Scots Nats, I don't see you making disparaging remarks about them. You never did like referendum results did you RR.

 

What you have seen, however, is my consistency in advocating for PR, something the SNP has supported since long before the PR referendum. 

25 minutes ago, Lormak said:

Make no mistake, Dominic's departure from Downing St is a huge loss for Great Britain. The man is an intellectual giant.  Dominic almost singlehandedly delivered the Leave vote, won an election by a landslide and then defeated an attempted Remainer coup. Generations to come will thank him for winning back our freedom after over 40 years of subjugation under the EU jackboot.

I've no doubt he'll be knighted and be given a seat in the Lords.

Dominic Cummings ran a very successful campaign for the leave camp.  The bus and the catch phrases did a good job in convincing the public that leaving was a good idea.  So there is no doubt that he was a good campaign manager.  The problem was that Johnson then took him with him when he became PM.  Because as a personal advisor he really sucked.  Less than a year in the job and Boris is swimming in a sea of U-turns and chaos, mainly brought about by the workings of Cummings.

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

In fact, 37% wanted it. So much destruction, so much loss - to appease 37% of of the electorate who still cannot define what they think they have achieved. 

Latest polls show Lab & Con level pegging if an election were called today. Johnson's approval rating @ 42% which is less than Trump's before the US election.

 

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

 

 

Edited November 14, 20205 yr by polpott

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

What you have seen, however, is my consistency in advocating for PR, something the SNP has supported since long before the PR referendum. 

I have seen the Scot Nats with only 45% of the seats in Holyrood, can't you at least be a little more consistant, people in glass houses and all that.

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I have seen the Scot Nats with only 45% of the seats in Holyrood, can't you at least be a little more consistant, people in glass houses and all that.

 

Is there actually a point to that post because I am struggling to see it.

 

Holyrood elections use the D'Hondt method and, in the event of any party not receiving an outright majority, the party which forms a government governs with consensus and negotiation.  

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Is there actually a point to that post because I am struggling to see it.

 

Holyrood elections use the D'Hondt method and, in the event of any party not receiving an outright majority, the party which forms a government governs with consensus and negotiation.  

Whatever methods you use is inconsiquential when you see that 2/3rds of the Scots electorate didn't vote for Sturgeon.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Whatever methods you use is inconsiquential when you see that 2/3rds of the Scots electorate didn't vote for Sturgeon.

 

 

 

 

 

All voters are represented because the party seat allocation is reflective of voter choice though the electoral system. As no party has an overall majority, in order to make progress and pass bills, the governing party is forced to work with the opposition parties to achieve consensus. It may not be perfect but it is far better than the winner takes all equivalent in Westminster, where more than half the country are disenfranchised. 

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

Whatever methods you use is inconsiquential when you see that 2/3rds of the Scots electorate didn't vote for Sturgeon.

 

 

 

 

Its even more inconseekwenshul when you see that in the real world, 45% of the electorate in Scotland voted for the SNP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/scotland

 

8 hours ago, vogie said:

I think we can safely say without fear of contradiction that without the undemocratic actions of the remainers that It would not have taken "years"

 

No 'we' can't say that. It is your opinion. My opinion - shared by many others - is that successive useless Tory governments are responsible for the sorry mess that we now find ourselves in.

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

All voters are represented because the party seat allocation is reflective of voter choice though the electoral system. As no party has an overall majority, in order to make progress and pass bills, the governing party is forced to work with the opposition parties to achieve consensus. It may not be perfect but it is far better than the winner takes all equivalent in Westminster, where more than half the country are disenfranchised. 

We have to work with what we have got and adhere to whatever ruling we have at the time, you might say that your way is better but I wouldn't mind betting should Corbyn had won the GE, we probably wouldn't be hearing a peep out of you or any of the other the remainers.

Edited November 14, 20205 yr by vogie

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

No 'we' can't say that. It is your opinion. My opinion - shared by many others - is that successive useless Tory governments are responsible for the sorry mess that we now find ourselves in.

Doesn't say much for the opposition if that is what you think now does it!

32 minutes ago, vogie said:

Doesn't say much for the opposition if that is what you think now does it!

No it doesn't but there's a new man in charge now, who consistently makes mincemeat of Johnson at the dispatch box. 

 

In any event, your comment does nothing to refute the hypothesis that this chaos is the result of the Tories consistently putting party - and individual ambition - before country.

 

Although the FT newspaper is behind a paywall, they do post free podcasts. Some here may find them interesting listening (Spoiler alert: They aren't usually very complimentary about our PM)

 

https://app.ft.com/stream/c6f9be29-5771-4c80-ba37-09ee061bd80f

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

No it doesn't but there's a new man in charge now, who consistently makes mincemeat of Johnson at the dispatch box. 

 

In any event, your comment does nothing to refute the hypothesis that this chaos is the result of the Tories consistently putting party - and individual ambition - before country.

 

That's typical lefty/union convener talk......????

Plus, you now have a toff at your reins, how embarrassing for you...????

11 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The Westminster political bubble was awash with speculation that Johnson's fiancee Carrie Symonds aligned with Johnson's new press secretary Allegra Stratton to oust Cain - to the displeasure of Cummings, who then threatened to resign

 

   Cummings stated in his blog back in January , that he would be leaving his post by the end of the year , and he would spend the coming year making himself redundant in his position 

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

No it doesn't but there's a new man in charge now, who consistently makes mincemeat of Johnson at the dispatch box. 

 

In any event, your comment does nothing to refute the hypothesis that this chaos is the result of the Tories consistently putting party - and individual ambition - before country.

 

I have no interest in your imaginary and twisty postings as you well know. Your add-ons are of little interest.

2 minutes ago, transam said:

That's typical lefty/union convener talk......????

Plus, you now have a toff at your reins, how embarrassing for you...????

And that is just your usual vacuous nonsense.

 

I don't care if the Labour party is led by the 'Earl of Wherever' so long as I broadly agree with the party's policies, and the leader appears to be a credible PM in waiting.

 

Btw Starmer's parents were respectively a toolmaker and nurse. Maybe have a go at fact checking in future. It will save you from continually ending up with egg on your face.

Just now, RayC said:

And that is just your usual vacuous nonsense.

 

I don't care if the Labour party is led by the 'Earl of Wherever' so long as I broadly agree with the party's policies, and the leader appears to be a credible PM in waiting.

 

Btw Starmer's parents were respectively a toolmaker and nurse. Maybe have a go at fact checking in future. It will save you from continually ending up with egg on your face.

No egg here sunbeam, you post unfounded tosh about Tory MP's, putting them all in one bracket which is nonsense...????

6 hours ago, vogie said:

6 hours ago, polpott said:

You have consistently failed to understand that the Torys had a majority but failed to use it due to their own infighting. They were the architects of their own demise.

Demise equates to an 80 seat majority? I'll take that every time.

 

Ah, yes, the short game view.

 

How about demise as in a no deal brexit for the people that voted for them and gave them that majority in the hope of getting something better than May's empty posturing?

 

That's the long game.

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I have no interest in your imaginary and twisty postings as you well know. Your add-ons are of little interest.

Boris has had it easy,when he was Mayor of London he was up against Ken Livingstone,when he became PM he had Jeremy Corbyn.Kier is a totally different beast.He is having to walk a fine line because of Covid, he cant trash Boris because it would not look good and they would use it against him.Come the new year and if the vaccine shows up the gloves can come off.

14 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   Cummings stated in his blog back in January , that he would be leaving his post by the end of the year , and he would spend the coming year making himself redundant in his position 

 

Apparently getting busted holding an in-house meeting with his cronies to discuss the weak leadership of Boris and his interfering fiancee was the fast-track method of making himself redundant.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The vast majority of the electorate is not represented by this government. They have an 80 seat majority whilst receiving fewer than half the votes. They are able to deliver an agenda that suits a minority while the majority have to accept it. Do you think that this is a healthy way to run a country?

Anything was better than letting the commie "Corbynistas" in!

12 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

Ah, yes, the short game view.

 

How about demise as in a no deal brexit for the people that voted for them and gave them that majority in the hope of getting something better than May's empty posturing?

 

That's the long game.

The people that voted for Brexit voted for just that, they did not vote for any imaginary caveats that wasn't attached to the referendum leaflet. They wanted out, the remainers were thrown a lifeline with Mays deal, they chose not to grab it. One foot in the door of Verhofstadts office wasn't Brexit.

48 minutes ago, adammike said:

Boris has had it easy,when he was Mayor of London he was up against Ken Livingstone,when he became PM he had Jeremy Corbyn.Kier is a totally different beast.He is having to walk a fine line because of Covid, he cant trash Boris because it would not look good and they would use it against him.Come the new year and if the vaccine shows up the gloves can come off.

I certainly wouldn't use the word "beast" to describe Starmer. And indeed he won't trash Boris with Brexit, basically the country does not trust him. He has split the Labour Party, too much infighting for them to win an election.

Here is the graph showing peoples preference on who they would trust to handle Brexit.

 

 

he can bring him back at the next election if he should choose to do so

1 hour ago, RayC said:

And that is just your usual vacuous nonsense.

 

I don't care if the Labour party is led by the 'Earl of Wherever' so long as I broadly agree with the party's policies, and the leader appears to be a credible PM in waiting.

 

Btw Starmer's parents were respectively a toolmaker and nurse. Maybe have a go at fact checking in future. It will save you from continually ending up with egg on your face.

voters dont trust labour as they tried to stitch up a democratic vote ,benn act in particular ,so voters want to kick their a55es at the next GE..starmer is an oportunish roach who has a rabble party controlled by the unions