Westminster Politics



Laura being impartial again. Good of her to decide what the truth is for us.
 
sun_tzu said:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-farage-as-its-saviour-after-ratings-freefall

That seems to be the expectation
Click to expand...
It’s so weird that GBN are expecting him to be some sort of ratings saviour. He was an effective politician because he’s a lizard (well, frog) of a man but he’s void of any sort of charisma and even rabid Brexiteers find him a bit bland an irritating.

He’s not exactly Trump who for all his ridiculous faults, is capable of drawing massive crowds and has a huge following. He’s really not a great orator and his debating skills are limited. I’m not sure what they think they are getting when they put him on screen with his own show.
 
Pexbo said:
It’s so weird that GBN are expecting him to be some sort of ratings saviour. He was an effective politician because he’s a lizard (well, frog) of a man but he’s void of any sort of charisma and even rabid Brexiteers find him a bit bland an irritating.

He’s not exactly Trump who for all his ridiculous faults, is capable of drawing massive crowds and has a huge following. He’s really not a great orator and his debating skills are limited. I’m not sure what they think they are getting when they put him on screen with his own show.
Click to expand...

I thought the rabid Brexiteers were mad for him?
 
What's Cummings role now? I keep seeing him, or articles on something he said at least once a week... If not more often!? And which of the right wing media lords boytoy is he? Dacre's or Murdochs? Needs to be one of them to be so permanently "relevant" without a job surely?
 
Abizzz said:
What's Cummings role now? I keep seeing him, or articles on something he said at least once a week... If not more often!? And which of the right wing media lords boytoy is he? Dacre's or Murdochs? Needs to be one of them to be so permanently "relevant" without a job surely?
Click to expand...

He is starting to sound like a jilted partner with an axe to grind
 
Abizzz said:
What's Cummings role now? I keep seeing him, or articles on something he said at least once a week... If not more often!? And which of the right wing media lords boytoy is he? Dacre's or Murdochs? Needs to be one of them to be so permanently "relevant" without a job surely?
Click to expand...
Just a pretty high profile disgruntled ex-employee it seems.
 
Widow said:
He is starting to sound like a jilted partner with an axe to grind
Click to expand...

Should that be more important than the fact he had unique access into the decision making of this event? If he provides communications that corroborate his view, can you separate the man from the message?
 
Brwned said:
Should that be more important than the fact he had unique access into the decision making of this event? If he provides communications that corroborate his view, can you separate the man from the message?
Click to expand...
I can think of someone on here who definitely will be able to.
 
Brwned said:
Should that be more important than the fact he had unique access into the decision making of this event? If he provides communications that corroborate his view, can you separate the man from the message?
Click to expand...

I don't believe he is a truthful man. Some will be true, other parts will be bollocks.

But, if a politician lying or making outrageous comments comes as a surprise, you've (not aimed at anyone) lived a sheltered life!

Let us replace Bojo and then we can move on to disgusting the faults and failures of the next leader from whichever party (highly unlikely to be Labour)
 
sun_tzu said:


I'm expecting the one show plus some dog whistle racism as well as some more overt racism
Click to expand...


"Be there or be square" ... cannot believe Farage really said that... wasn't that one straight from 'Cool for Cats' with Kent Walton?
 
Widow said:
I don't believe he is a truthful man. Some will be true, other parts will be bollocks.

But, if a politician lying or making outrageous comments comes as a surprise, you've (not aimed at anyone) lived a sheltered life!

Let us replace Bojo and then we can move on to disgusting the faults and failures of the next leader from whichever party (highly unlikely to be Labour)
Click to expand...

That's not really how accountability works, though. If you expect people in positions of power to misuse that power due to misaligned incentives, flawed ethics, poor decision-making etc. then you guard against that by providing transparency, independent audits, etc. That old idea of checks and balances.

If you just brush everything away as that's just politicians doing what politicians do, grow up mate then the inevitable consequence is that power will be misused more and more frequently, which tends to have severe consequences for those downstream. And in a democratic system the people downstream are the people who elect them in the first place, so it'd be a particularly silly way for democracies to function.

Let's hold all of our politicians to a standard that actually benefits the society they govern over, rather than fighting some silly tribal battle of my guy's better than your guy so suck it. That requires you to pay attention to the substance of what people like Dominic Cumming say, while stripping out his own personal motivations and flaws. Otherwise you're actively choosing to make democracy function worse.
 
Brwned said:
That's not really how accountability works, though. If you expect people in positions of power to misuse that power due to misaligned incentives, flawed ethics, poor decision-making etc. then you guard against that by providing transparency, independent audits, etc. That old idea of checks and balances.

If you just brush everything away as that's just politicians doing what politicians do, grow up mate then the inevitable consequence is that power will be misused more and more frequently, which tends to have severe consequences for those downstream. And in a democratic system the people downstream are the people who elect them in the first place, so it'd be a particularly silly way for democracies to function.

Let's hold all of our politicians to a standard that actually benefits the society they govern over, rather than fighting some silly tribal battle of my guy's better than your guy so suck it. That requires you to pay attention to the substance of what people like Dominic Cumming say, while stripping out his own personal motivations and flaws. Otherwise you're actively choosing to make democracy function worse.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it.
 
Brwned said:
Do you think your attitude is healthy in a democracy?
Click to expand...

This is the problem with making any sort of comment on here. You don't know the first thing about me or my thoughts but you base your assumption on a single comment aimed at nobody in particular.

You clearly want to engage and I do not.
 
Brwned said:
Do you think your attitude is healthy in a democracy?
Click to expand...

Isn't the truth of it,that we get the politicians we deserve?
Party politics is not democracy, its just "my gangs bigger, or better or in some case less 'unbelievable', than yours"; however if you elected (could elect) 650 individuals with no party affiliations and all honest upstanding and never tell lies, would we be any better off... and crucially, would anything ever get done?
 
Widow said:
This is the problem with making any sort of comment on here. You don't know the first thing about me or my thoughts but you base your assumption on a single comment aimed at nobody in particular.

You clearly want to engage and I do not.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you make a comment on a discussion forum which someone doesn't agree with, often they will reply and enter into a discussion. Political discussions tend to be a bit more heated because they matter a lot more to real people than whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.

My first comment was expanding on your comment and explaining my thinking, in other words kicking off a discussion. You took a dismissive attitude to it, and I asked whether that dismissive attitude is healthy in politics because it followed on directly from the prior point - dismissing issues on the basis of party affiliations and low political standards.

If you'd replied to the first comment there would no assumptions, just a transparent discussion. If you only want people to agree with you, rather than present alternative opinions and try to dig deeper into the issue, then there are better places to do that than a forum designed for discussion.

In general, it's healthy in a democracy for political views to be challenged. People need to justify their beliefs and decisions because they impact on others in that democracy. In my view, it's a sign of a dysfunctional democracy if the very notion of that discussion is considered offensive. And I do think our democracy is dysfunctional so uncomfortable discussions are inevitable.

Maticmaker said:
Isn't the truth of it,that we get the politicians we deserve?
Party politics is not democracy, its just "my gangs bigger, or better or in some case less 'unbelievable', than yours"; however if you elected (could elect) 650 individuals with no party affiliations and all honest upstanding and never tell lies, would we be any better off... and crucially, would anything ever get done?
Click to expand...

I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.

I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse. The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.

There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.

If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.
 
Brwned said:
Yes, if you make a comment on a discussion forum which someone doesn't agree with, often they will reply and enter into a discussion. Political discussions tend to be a bit more heated because they matter a lot more to real people than whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.

My first comment was expanding on your comment and explaining my thinking, in other words kicking off a discussion. You took a dismissive attitude to it, and I asked whether that dismissive attitude is healthy in politics because it followed on directly from the prior point - dismissing issues on the basis of party affiliations and low political standards.

If you'd replied to the first comment there would no assumptions, just a transparent discussion. If you only want people to agree with you, rather than present alternative opinions and try to dig deeper into the issue, then there are better places to do that than a forum designed for discussion.

In general, it's healthy in a democracy for political views to be challenged. People need to justify their beliefs and decisions because they impact on others in that democracy. In my view, it's a sign of a dysfunctional democracy if the very notion of that discussion is considered offensive.



I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.

I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse. The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.

There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.

If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining how this stuff works even if it was a little condescending, I feel enlightened.
 
Rado_N said:
“This is going to take some explanation from Boris Johnson”

Johnson: “I didn’t say that”

Everyone: “what’s for dinner?”
Click to expand...
Well, I'd like to see ol Bo Jo wriggle his way out of THIS jam! *Boris Johnson wriggles his way out of the jam easily* Ah! Well. Nevertheless,
 
Paxi said:
You sound like the condescending one here.
Click to expand...

Edit: deleted as I absolutely can't be arsed having to explain myself on the fecking Internet every time I want to make a comment.

I wish people a good morning and some cnut would quiestion it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.