Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 11:55:21 GMT
My personal view is that it was all Johnson's fault and that he saw that Leave was a way for him to achieve the premiership. His presence in the Leave camp brought in many more voters. Imagine if he'd gone the opposite way and campaigned for Remain. I suspect Remain would have won, we wouldn't have lost the 'sensible' wing of the Tory party and the country would have been spared Johnson's capers and Truss and Sunak etc . Do you remember the clip where Johnson was caught on film looking agahst after receiving the news leave had won? Johnson was asked to lead for remain by Cameron, he had that list of pros and cons for each side. If he had supported remain it would have done little for his career had remain won. Had they lost, bad news for him. If he suported leave then if they won he became leader of leave and replaced Cameron. Well, not straight away but that IS what hppened eventually. If leave lost he would still have been the face of leave and leader of the leave faction. A powerful position for a future career. It was expected by most that remain would win, indeed complacence by remain seems to have been an important factor in their losing. So likely Johnson's expected outcome was we would stay in the EU, which it seems very likely is what he believes is right for the UK, but he would be leader of leave. I dont think he is much in the way of a principled politician, rather an expedient one. Which is why he could be partying at Downing street totally convinced lockdown was pointless, and still be appearing in public telling everyone it was necessary.
Johnson got what he wanted, a spell in power which he could not have got otherwise. Its the golden thread through all of this. Cameron got a turn. May got a turn. Johnson got a turn. Clegg got as close as he could have hoped. Now Sunak has a turn. Not a principled politicians amongst them except May, and she never had a hope of a good outcome having anyway been a remainer. Most are no different to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 9, 2024 11:57:59 GMT
CB, I think the contentious line in the YG Red Wall piece is the below: ''For Labour, failing to win back the constituencies across the North and Midlands which fell to Johnson’s Conservatives – and indeed to May in 2017 – would spell defeat.'' I think it is hard to see Labour securing an OM without taking those seats back that they lost in 2019. (May be an odd one they don't for very local factors). This only get's them back to 262, though, and therefore short of an OM by 60 seats or so (SF abstain). Simply then Labour MUST take additional seats to 2019 losses being recovered. Where I think you are right is that this does nor mean retaking all those they lost in 2017. Scotland could see 20 gains for Labour (15 from the SNP) and other seats in more 'remainery' areas that Labour didn't gain in 2017 followed by a wider margin of defeat in 2019 could well fall Labour in 2024. I think YG are right in the sense that the type of voters Labour lost across 2017 and 2019 (I would add 2015 as well) need to largely return but whether they need to retake all the seats that fell is less clear to me. Mansfield may well stay Tory for example and Labour could win without it... I did a comparison of YG's recent detailed figures to the 1997 General Election last month (p214 if anyone is interested). The same figures can of course be compared to GE2015. My conclusion is that Labour are probably not winning back the same kind of voters who they lost post-2016. By social class, YG show a swing of close to 20% among ABC1 voters compared to 2015, but only around 6-7% with C2DEs. Because of this, and the changing geographical pattern of voting in England, Labour should now be more confident of winning in places like Wycombe, Colchester, Altrincham, or the Bournemouth seats than in Bassetlaw or Mansfield. I would be supried to see labour re-take any seat which voted 65%+ for Leave in a General Election, even though they did narrowly manage that in the Tamworth by-election.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 12:00:18 GMT
It has been really all down to one discreditted man. Dear me, No. Cameron was chosen to lead con because he was seen as electable. A posh salesman. Johnsons ditto, with a better touch for the common man. May was a compromise between the leave and remain sides to try to rescue something from the disastrous leave result. Con probably had three sorts of MPs, remain, leave, and those who saw the referendum as a means to power. But it seems very likely the majority, maybe the great majority, would have agreed brexit was bad for the UK. And so they were all collectively responsible in delivering something they knew to be bad for the country but good for them.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 12:07:59 GMT
A seriously stupid thing to say. Covid kills or fecks enough people up to destroy lives. Covid was nothing as epidemics go by histporical standards. Its only because we are used to sanitised safe lives it created such a panic now. Plus the billions, perhaps trillions, to be made by the medical industry from the whipped up crisis. Had covid come along in 1918 instead of the flu we had then, its possible we would hardly have noticed it because it simply dosesnt attack the young(ish) in the way flu does. Covid is responsible for only a fraction of man-years of life that flu outbreak took away, and its not even clear we saved much by all that we did. There seems to be a real risk of collapse of modern society, but its because we have become complacent and expectant of luxury. We have become unable to tackle climate change by ending use of fossil fuels, its toooo painful. We are handing all wealth to the shrinking in size class of truly rich, on the pretext of defending the right for anyone to be wealthy. Its a return to all the wrong Victorian values for a prosperous egalitarian society. Being unable to understand there was little to be done about covid, just accepting we do not control everything in this world, has driven us further towards self destruction.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 9, 2024 12:09:19 GMT
CB, I think the contentious line in the YG Red Wall piece is the below: ''For Labour, failing to win back the constituencies across the North and Midlands which fell to Johnson’s Conservatives – and indeed to May in 2017 – would spell defeat.'' I think it is hard to see Labour securing an OM without taking those seats back that they lost in 2019. (May be an odd one they don't for very local factors). This only get's them back to 262, though, and therefore short of an OM by 60 seats or so (SF abstain). Simply then Labour MUST take additional seats to 2019 losses being recovered. Where I think you are right is that this does nor mean retaking all those they lost in 2017. Scotland could see 20 gains for Labour (15 from the SNP) and other seats in more 'remainery' areas that Labour didn't gain in 2017 followed by a wider margin of defeat in 2019 could well fall Labour in 2024. I think YG are right in the sense that the type of voters Labour lost across 2017 and 2019 (I would add 2015 as well) need to largely return but whether they need to retake all the seats that fell is less clear to me. Mansfield may well stay Tory for example and Labour could win without it... I did a comparison of YG's recent detailed figures to the 1997 General Election last month (p214 if anyone is interested). The same figures can of course be compared to GE2015. My conclusion is that Labour are probably not winning back the same kind of voters who they last post-2016. By social class, YG show a swing of close to 20% among ABC1 voters compared to 2015, but only around 6-7% with C2DEs. Because of this, and the changing geographical pattern of voting in England, Labour should now be more confident of winning in places like Wycombe, Colchester, Altrincham, or the Bournemouth seats than in Bassetlaw or Mansfield. I would be supried to see labour re-take any seat which voted 65%+ for Leave in a General Election, even though they did narrowly manage that in the Tamworth by-election. This underlines that much of the cultural rift created by the referendum has still not faded. The idea that struggling, old industrial communities like Mansfield would continue to vote tory despite everything practical done by that party making their already often challenging material lives harder and all because of a fleeting, ephemeral and long used up feeling of bloody minded national pride that brexit once gave them is to me absolutely staggering. Once the scales do finally fall the inhabitants of places like that will likely turn to the far right in droves. It possibly indicates that they have almost no hope in the future and resentment is the key motivator. There seems a total absence of hope now from right wing narratives generally, especially here and in the US. It's all about fear and distrust/resentment of the 'other', foreign or domestic (educated liberals).
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,264
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 12:10:49 GMT
Dave "But do you really classify 17 million voters as idiots" I never said they were all idiots, you did.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 9, 2024 12:11:40 GMT
Colin: "Yes I think you have a point about Brexit being a safety valve here.
Wasn't it EU membership that provided the safety valve, rather than brexit, in that it provided an escape route for the head of steam generated by dissatisfaction with the state of the country? "Blame it on Brussels" was a very useful mantra for useless governments.
It may well be the case that in Germany people's ire is (correctly) directed at the failings of their own government, and the constitutional enforcement of 'sound money'. If people there don't fall for the "Blame it on Brussels" excuse, that seems to me entirely to their credit.
As for remainers here failing to provide ongoing commentary on EU affairs, I have thought of complementing your stream of negative reports with positive ones, and could certainly do so, but I'm not a fan of the Punch and Judy school of commentary.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,026
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 9, 2024 12:18:54 GMT
A question often asked is are we looking at 1992 or 1997 in terms of a likely General Election result For me it is very much 1997 for three reasons
1. 10 months before 1992 Labour had an average poll lead of 6% It's now 18%
2. Polls are done more regularly now than in 1992 and by more pollsters. In addition some of the pollsters reallocate don't knows to their 2019 vote, this favours the tories. But it's not 2019 and the factors present then have either gone or no longer so salient
3. Whilst Starmer may not be a Neil Kinnock or Tony Blair, Sunak is certainly no John Major and he is very unpopular
I still think the chances of a huge Labour landslide are under priced in large sections of the media
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 9, 2024 12:20:23 GMT
I did a comparison of YG's recent detailed figures to the 1997 General Election last month (p214 if anyone is interested). The same figures can of course be compared to GE2015. My conclusion is that Labour are probably not winning back the same kind of voters who they last post-2016. By social class, YG show a swing of close to 20% among ABC1 voters compared to 2015, but only around 6-7% with C2DEs. Because of this, and the changing geographical pattern of voting in England, Labour should now be more confident of winning in places like Wycombe, Colchester, Altrincham, or the Bournemouth seats than in Bassetlaw or Mansfield. I would be supried to see labour re-take any seat which voted 65%+ for Leave in a General Election, even though they did narrowly manage that in the Tamworth by-election. Thanks for that analysis (you are one of the reasons I keep coming back here!) It is hard to grasp the nuances of polling in areas whose characteristics are somewhat dissimilar to one's own.
It does strike me that, if Labour gain power through the votes of wealthier (if perhaps more socially liberal) folk in the South of England, then to maintain power it would be wise for them to govern in their interests. I don't think it's sensible for people to continue to characterise any political party as having an immutable set of values, hence the decreasing value of looking back at polling or election results from the 1970s or 80s.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 12:21:14 GMT
Listened to Today almost every weekday from teenage years up to 2018/19 when I had to stop for the sake of my sanity. It's tragic to see what a broadcasting institution has degenerated into. I know what you mean, but I cant help thinking we are actually much more rebellious nowadays in certain respects, and better informed. Is Watergate truly shocking today? I dont think so in the way it was then. Would it be such a shock to see the famous picture of the napalmed girl running down the street in vietnam these days, from Ukraine or Gaza? Maybe the BBC establishment bias is because it feels the need to persuade the public to agree rather than accept the establishemnt line as would automatically have happened in the past. Was their reporting truly unbiased, or we just believed it was?
Case in point - gay rights. Alan Turing is now famous not merely for his contributions to winning WW2, as he would always have been. But now as a martyr to gay persecution. And yet when it came to it, the public accepted gay rights very readily. Perhaps because 10% of them had always been not straight, and the remaining 90% therefore had a close friend or relative who was not. What seems to have sustained gay persecution was the establishment position it was right. Once that faded, then it became a propaganda war to try to maintain persecution, which collapsed. Racial discrimination in the UK today isnt a patch on how strong it was in my youth. The BBC recently attacked Linker for speaking out against the government, but he was contractually entitled to do so. They just hadnt believed anyone would. The assumption of righteousness equating with those in power has been totally smashed and so we see through far more than we did before.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 9, 2024 12:23:43 GMT
Curiously the current travails of Ed Davey are probably wound up with the stealth EU Superstate project of which he, along with Jo Swinson, were arch loyalists.
Why did he want Royal Mail privatisation to happen smoothly? A curiously unpopulist idea for the Lib Dems to be so supportive of!
Without being accused of promoting "fake" news, there's plenty of information out there about postal service "liberalisation", state subsidies and the Neo-Lib drive to end state ownership.
You have to feel sorry for Davey and Swinson, those plum Commissioner jobs evaporated prettly quickly in 2016!!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 12:24:56 GMT
But do you really classify 17 million voters as idiots? Every last one of them? Whats that saying 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time'. Only about 1/3 of elegible voters actually did vote to leave. How many are still fooled? How many were ever fooled in the sense of believing in Brexit, but just wanted to give Cameron a bloody nose, without realising the consequences. How many just thought it was worth a try without really believing?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,820
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 12:35:42 GMT
What he is talking about is the right populism forecast to sweep over the EP in the June elections-but also similar trends in national parliaments-Italy, Netherlands, France etc. Now you could be cynical about Marr and say -but these are voter responses. Democracy in action. If your espousal of Remaining in EU was on the proviso that it remains politically loc , then thats no recommendation for the Institution. The (approximate) century of democracy is waning. Rulers always come in two sorts, good and bad. Democracy doesnt guarantee good, merely turnover. WW1 saw a transition for many countries from hereditary elite rule to elections, which broadened after WW2. Initially the masses got what they demanded, but the traditional elites have been fighting back. Cameron, Johnson, Clegg... none of them wanted more than to be PM, be important themselves. No route to benefit the masses. The post WW2 labour government did many things to help the masses and con were forced to match them to regain power. But since Thatcher it has all gone into reverse. Obviously Russia would like nothing better than for the EU to collapse and NATO to collapse, and must have been working quietly for this since WW2. It seems to be winning. Obviously further away, but China and India too will be influencing british voters where they can. Is there anyone in power in the UK who actually cares whether at the end of a 15 year period in office, the nation will be materially improved from when they assumed power? Its evident from results there isnt in the conservative party. The last labour government was infinitely better, but nor did they really believe in wealth equality and equal opportunity which tends to flow from that.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 9, 2024 12:47:29 GMT
I realise I am being a little self-indulgent, (but hell, given some of the self-indulgence that takes place on here, I feel positively restrained!), but I loved your post. I caught 'Colonel Blimp' on TV recently. A monumental work, beautifully photographed, if a trifle long. I love Anton Walbrook, (brilliant in the 1940 'Gaslight'), and Roger Livesey was a splendid actor (he appeared in the much later, but very droll 'The League of Gentlemen' on Talking Pictures earlier this evening). With regard to your last point, a quick shout out for 'Showboat' (1936), another of my favourites. Not only does it include sassy Irene Dunne, who you mentioned, but it also gives prominent roles to Hattie McDaniel, (later to win an Oscar in GWTW), but also the magnificent Paul Robeson. Apart from Dunne's unfortunate blackface number, which was unremarkable in 1936, the film's treatment of race is quite sympathetic, certainly considering it was made nearly 90 years ago. Add to that a wonderful score and superb cast, (Dunne is almost heartbreaking), and you have an epic film which I like to think of as a musical 'Gone With The Wind'. Directed by gay Englishman James Whale, who managed to produce iconic films in two different genres, musicals, (Showboat), and horror, (Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein). No mean feat! For anyone unfamiliar, I offer this contribution. youtu.be/df4VdyGIqJ8?si=FCtYKsXrHIXIQNPiSelf-indulgent? The boys are always on about cherries, toffees, sherbert lemons, each to their own pastures. But having listed a few films earlier, find that people like talking about em. The utube was fab. Such good quality print & the production values crammed into 5 minutes! Never seen it, as no DVD, screening. But now see Criterion released Blueray (2020). Ill stump up 17.50. Imitation of Life, '30s & '50s (Sirk) v rare films that broach race. The latter was slagged by many critics as a twin mother/daughter weepie: some never even mentioned race! Guilt I think that you could watch a 1,000 old Hollywood fils & conclude USA was a 100% white. League of Gentleman (1960) a fave. It's basically a war film that subverts the genre. 1. Group of ill-assorted, conflicting misfits are assembled. 2. Capable leader (Hawkins of course) welds them slowly into efficient, cohesive & rehabilitated fighting unit. 3.They complete mission successfully & heroically. But instead of beating the Nazis they rob a bank! Bryan Forbes the writer points out that every cast member, including himself, served in WW2, which is probably why the hilarious scene where they mount a fake inspection of an army base to cover up an arms raid is so well done. Bilko marks a similar sociological moment. Soldiers are slackers not heroes: the army is just another big institution. I can recall one ref to WW2. Bilko says to someone in passing: havn't seen you since Guadalcanal! wb61. "Surprised no-one has mentioned Sabotage (1935?) Hitchcock beginning to demonstrate his genius." Based on Conrad's Secret Agent. Weird even for a fan like me. But Conrad like Hitch can do action & suspense. Bit creaky but the scene in the film of boy on bus carrying (unknowingly) the bomb, the clock ticking to detonation time. Classic. mercian "the film thing (and feel free to sneer), I don't watch many films nowadays but these came to mind: A Hill in Korea Ice Cold in Alex A Matter of Life and Death The Vikings Waterloo Zulu
These were films that were memorable to me, not just about how 'artistic' they were or some sort of other claptrap." Not seen Korea but liked or loved all the others. But why yr determined, bozo, self-styled philistinism. The people who made 'em were artists. Take the last brilliant scene in Alex, where the exaggerated condensation glistening on the glasses of beer makes us feel as thirsty as the characters. Do you think the cinemaphotographer, one of the finest, just pointed the camera & clicked!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,264
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 12:48:34 GMT
"Why did he want Royal Mail privatisation to happen smoothly"
Given that royal mail privatisation didn't commence until 2013 after Davey ceased to be postal minister and didn't conclude until after the coalition government ended it probably wasn't central to his thinking!
Surely you can find some anonymous Twitter loon to explain how it was all his idea.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,264
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 12:50:09 GMT
"Without being accused of promoting "fake" news"
Stop promoting fake news then no one will accuse you of it!
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 9, 2024 12:55:29 GMT
PS. Father Goose is another war film. We have Mother Goose (apparently his avatar is a goose, not a duck crossed with a platypus ( James E ) guiding his goslings through the treacherous thickets of polling, full of charlatans prepared to trap us.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,264
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 12:58:08 GMT
Second to a lettuce Liz Truss announces the name of her new lunatic fringe section of the Tory party joining the other " five families" of deranged far right brexitanian sub parties we now have the "popular ( front for the liberation of) consetvatism. Given that there could be less than 30 Tory mps after the next election according to the latest yougov poll it's possible that the remaining toryite mps might have to switch allegiances on a daily basis as there won't be enough head bangers to go round. youtu.be/UA_SkNJdyA4?si=Nu2A01ZL5hIuGOXB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 13:06:40 GMT
Whats the next 'safety valve' you'd suggest? Leaving the ECHR? Having a 'beat up a foreigner' day? I rest my case.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 9, 2024 13:07:39 GMT
I did a comparison of YG's recent detailed figures to the 1997 General Election last month (p214 if anyone is interested). The same figures can of course be compared to GE2015. My conclusion is that Labour are probably not winning back the same kind of voters who they last post-2016. By social class, YG show a swing of close to 20% among ABC1 voters compared to 2015, but only around 6-7% with C2DEs. Because of this, and the changing geographical pattern of voting in England, Labour should now be more confident of winning in places like Wycombe, Colchester, Altrincham, or the Bournemouth seats than in Bassetlaw or Mansfield. I would be supried to see labour re-take any seat which voted 65%+ for Leave in a General Election, even though they did narrowly manage that in the Tamworth by-election. Thanks for that analysis (you are one of the reasons I keep coming back here!) It is hard to grasp the nuances of polling in areas whose characteristics are somewhat dissimilar to one's own.
It does strike me that, if Labour gain power through the votes of wealthier (if perhaps more socially liberal) folk in the South of England, then to maintain power it would be wise for them to govern in their interests. I don't think it's sensible for people to continue to characterise any political party as having an immutable set of values, hence the decreasing value of looking back at polling or election results from the 1970s or 80s.I do think both major GB wide parties are now misnamed. Labour doesn't primarily represent the working class - perhaps the (Mildly) Progressive Party would be about right. And there is nothing very conservative about the current iteration of the party carrying that name (and the English branch doesn't seem all that bothered about the Union, so Unionist doesn't work either.) The Grievance Party sums it up best of late.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jan 9, 2024 13:08:43 GMT
Acording to BBC News, Paula Vennels apologises and says she will hand back her CBE immediately.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 9, 2024 13:09:21 GMT
"Without being accused of promoting "fake" news" Stop promoting fake news then no one will accuse you of it! "Why did he want Royal Mail privatisation to happen smoothly" Given that royal mail privatisation didn't commence until 2013 after Davey ceased to be postal minister and didn't conclude until after the coalition government ended it probably wasn't central to his thinking! Surely you can find some anonymous Twitter loon to explain how it was all his idea. Does Lib Dem HQ pay you piece rate for your weak attempts to justify Davey and steer the narrative? You really DO NEED to check your facts; "The privatisation of Royal Mail has taken place in three parts – the majority of the company was disposed of in 2013, with 10% of shares allocated to an employee free offer and 60% sold to individuals and financial institutions. The first sale of Royal Mail started in October 2013, with shares priced at £3.30 each – total proceeds of the first sale were £1,980 million. When markets opened following the sale, Royal Mail shares were valued at £4.50. Since then the share price has mostly ranged between about £4 and £6. The sales of the remaining part started in June 2015. The final sale was completed in October 2015. Half of the remaining 30% of government owned shares after the first sale was sold on 10 June 2015 for a price of £5.00 a share, generating £750m with the second half sold on 13 October 2015 at a price of £4.55 a share, generating £591m. The government has said that this money will be used to reduce the national debt. The final sale also included a provision for 2% to go to Royal Mail employees. The total proceeds of privatisation has come to £3.3bn." Source: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06668/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 13:10:23 GMT
What he is talking about is the right populism forecast to sweep over the EP in the June elections-but also similar trends in national parliaments-Italy, Netherlands, France etc. Now you could be cynical about Marr and say -but these are voter responses. Democracy in action. If your espousal of Remaining in EU was on the proviso that it remains politically loc , then thats no recommendation for the Institution. The (approximate) century of democracy is waning. You could be right !! Xi & Putin are working on it-Trump too ! Lets hope Europe finds some leaders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 13:15:03 GMT
One of the things that I suspect newbies to this site would find pretty off-putting, should they chance upon us, is the superiority and pretty much down-right contempt that some seem to show all too often towards a huge percentage of the electorate. Imho, your oft repeated "national idiots' day" is a case in point Steve. Empty vessels Dave . And when voters move even further out of earshot , they become emptier of anything but their contempt and bile.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,026
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 9, 2024 13:15:23 GMT
jib'The first sale of Royal Mail started in October 2013' But that was surely Steve's point, Davey stopped being the Postal Minister on the 3 February 2012
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 9, 2024 13:17:21 GMT
PPS The funniest moment watching The Life & Death of Blimp in a big audience was when Livesey's batman says brightly in a Scottish accent: "you'll be glad to hear Sir I've joined the Home Guard". The older watchers laughed. It was said by "we're doomed" John Laurie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 13:19:53 GMT
I see ASLEF are in high dudgeon about Mayor Khan's £30m bung to buy off RMT.
Hope he has more cash down the sofa back to buy their strike off.
Union /Government relations are the big area of uncertainty for me with Starmer. Would like to hear from him on this.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 9, 2024 13:24:15 GMT
jib 'The first sale of Royal Mail started in October 2013' But that was surely Steve's point, Davey stopped being the Postal Minister on the 3 February 2012 He genuinely is trying to absolve Davey of having anything to do with the privatisation! My dear friend must really think we're stupid. Hang on.......he actually does. Stupid me!
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 9, 2024 13:29:37 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 9, 2024 13:30:04 GMT
Dave "But do you really classify 17 million voters as idiots" I never said they were all idiots, you did. You did not remotely indicate in your post that whatever percentage of leave voters were not idiots. If you weren't talking about all of them, you certainly did talk about their numbers as being in "millions". So clearly at the very least you are not accepting that a sizeable chunk of voters had their own reasons for voting out and that these reasons would have been good as well as bad, in much the same way as remainers. Just because they didn't vote the way you did, does not make them idiots. You didn't answer my question regarding whether as a Liberal candidate, you had made your views on many of your potential voters clear to them. I'm guessing that you didn't but please put me right if I'm wrong on that. This is also important I think, because if anyone considers a chunk of their potential voters in their seat to be idiots, how can anyone be expected to believe that that candidate, if successful, would look after the interests of the "idiots" to the same degree as they would, those who they consider not to be idiots.
|
|