May has gone - ding dong the utter, utter, total failure of a prime minister is gone

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

the thing i don't get is that we will have had 3 prime ministers, 1 general election and possibly another one before we leave the EU and since the referendum vote and yet having a second vote is somehow undemocratic.

Because they are worried they might lose.

They lost it long ago. They just can't admit it.

The establishment's resistance and incompetence isn't a legitimate reason to brow-beat the public into changing their minds just because you didn't like the original result.

We can't go back to the days of just ignoring those pesky unwashed masses - the genie is out of the bottle.

Pretty sure the establishment is as split as everyone else.

bompington

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.


*it stil amazes me how often phrases like "the will of the people" - I'm sure that sounds punchier in the original German - get used to refer to a narrow margin in a single vote :?

tailwindhome

Twitter seems to think Stewart will get the votes to survive this round and get to the BBC hustings.

Johnson's people want no part of him and there's speculation they will 'release' their supporters to back Hunt as their preferred opponent.

rolf_f

TailWindHome wrote:

Twitter seems to think Stewart will get the votes to survive this round and get to the BBC hustings.

Johnson's people want no part of him and there's speculation they will 'release' their supporters to back Hunt as their preferred opponent.

A Tory leadership contender with a spine was always going to cause confusion.

briantrumpet

bompington wrote:

*it stil amazes me how often phrases like "the will of the people" - I'm sure that sounds punchier in the original German - get used to refer to a narrow margin in a single vote :?

I would call it 'indoctrination by soundbite' - the incessant repetition of simplistic phrases designed to create or reinforce a certain mindset: you see it in religion, and in any populist political movements, such as we see in Trumplandia and in the Brexit farce. The phrases are mostly meaningless in themselves, but signify and reinforce belonging to a particular set of beliefs (however ill-founded).

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

Twitter seems to think Stewart will get the votes to survive this round and get to the BBC hustings.

Johnson's people want no part of him and there's speculation they will 'release' their supporters to back Hunt as their preferred opponent.

Twitter is not a reliable predictor of these things, but let's see. Stewart does have a point about Johnson's all things to all people approach and some of his Eurosceptic backers are getting nervous that he may have been lying to them as well as Hancock, etc. Somebody is going to be disappointed; probably all of us.

sgt.pepper

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

tailwindhome

Wow Emma Barnett's good.

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

kingstongraham

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

If what we were now being presented with as the only acceptable and "real" Brexit was ever mentioned even once as a possibility by anyone in favour of leaving at the time of the initial vote, then I'd be more inclined to agree.

kingstongraham

Is the Eton and Oxford educated, Times and Telegraph journalist, Conservative MP, Mayor and Foreign Secretary really the anti establishment choice?

sgt.pepper

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

Of course, but it is not as simple as proles vs. establishment, albeit that is a part of it. Home counties local Conservative Associations will be dismayed to be lumped in with the proles.

rolf_f

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment. The reason they got conned was down to the public faces. It will go down as one of the biggest own goals in history.

rick_chasey

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

What happens when the leading face of the Brexit campaign BoJo runs into exactly the same challenges May has?

coopster_the_1st

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

How's that working out for you so far?

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

What happens when the leading face of the Brexit campaign BoJo runs into exactly the same challenges May has?

Clean Brexit.

There's no such thing as a no deal Brexit as lots of little deals have already been agreed

coopster_the_1st

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

How's that working out for you so far?

Depends how much you think The Brexit Party have influenced politics in the last couple of months.

I would say quite well.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

How's that working out for you so far?

Depends how much you think The Brexit Party have influenced politics in the last couple of months.

I would say quite well.

With all their MPs?

darkhairedlord

This explains everything you need to know about tory party members.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

So how come the country elected a 'remainer parliament' as you like to call it?

FocusZing

Sir Kenneth Clarke and Sir Chris Pattern are both supporting Rory Stewart. He seems to the only realist who understands both public divisions need to be appeased.

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

bompington wrote:

I would have said that there is quite a difference between "browbeating the public into changing their minds" and giving the public the opportunity to either confirm their previous vote or change it, given that it wasn't very clear what they (narrowly*) voted for in the first place.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The vote (and result) were clear - it's the establishment that's failed the people. You don't just keep holding referenda because Westminster and Whitehall flustered because the proles stood up to the for a change.

For the record, I say this as somebody who is ambivalent towards the EU.

You seem to forget that the leave campaign was led by two of the most establishment figures there are.

Brexit goes far deeper than who were the public faces for the campaigns.

It was a case of the downtrodden public being conned into voting to get rid of the downtrodden public supporting EU in favour of the downtrodden public despising establishment.

The country electoral control over UK MP's. We do not have that control of the EU as it is distant and diluted intentionally by design

So how come the country elected a 'remainer parliament' as you like to call it?

Don't go exposing his obvious discrepancies!

rick_chasey

FocusZing wrote:

Sir Kenneth Clarke and Sir Chris Pattern are both supporting Rory Stewart. He seems to the only realist who understands both public divisions need to be appeased.

A rather generous interpretation.

The only person not promising undeliverable solutions.

Not really the same thing.

FocusZing

Rick Chasey wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Sir Kenneth Clarke and Sir Chris Pattern are both supporting Rory Stewart. He seems to the only realist who understands both public divisions need to be appeased.

A rather generous interpretation.

The only person not promising undeliverable solutions.

Not really the same thing.

What would your solution be?

rick_chasey

FocusZing wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Sir Kenneth Clarke and Sir Chris Pattern are both supporting Rory Stewart. He seems to the only realist who understands both public divisions need to be appeased.

A rather generous interpretation.

The only person not promising undeliverable solutions.

Not really the same thing.

What would your solution be?

Pfft, I'm not offering one, and neither were you.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

bompington wrote:

*it stil amazes me how often phrases like "the will of the people" - I'm sure that sounds punchier in the original German - get used to refer to a narrow margin in a single vote :?

I would call it 'indoctrination by soundbite' - the incessant repetition of simplistic phrases designed to create or reinforce a certain mindset: you see it in religion, and in any populist political movements, such as we see in Trumplandia and in the Brexit farce. The phrases are mostly meaningless in themselves, but signify and reinforce belonging to a particular set of beliefs (however ill-founded).

The brains behind the ongoing Leave campaign are very good at this, what on earth is a "managed no-deal" other than a contradiction in terms.

Jez mon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Clean Brexit.

There's no such thing as a no deal Brexit as lots of little deals have already been agreed

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

rjsterry

Raab is out and Stewart is only 4 votes behind Gove. Javid scraped it and Johnson didn't gain quite as many as predicted.