|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Tue 17 Sep 19:06
Banter
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 17 Sep 19:39
Well shockaroonie, I agree whole heartedly with CDF.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
Post Edited (Tue 17 Sep 19:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 17 Sep 20:09
I heard her on radio 4 the other day.
Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 17 Sep 20:17
Have to agree with the Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 17 Sep 21:25
Careful fellas. Jonathan Swift had a quote about this sort of thing.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Tue 17 Sep 21:30
What happened to the avocado sandwiches, hirsute bodies and sandals?
The world has gone mad.
Post Edited (Tue 17 Sep 21:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 17 Sep 22:25
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Tue 17 Sep 21:25
Careful fellas. Jonathan Swift had a quote about this sort of thing.
He was a bold man that first ate an oyster.
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 17 Sep 22:58
Nope and it also isn't ; "I'm as old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth"
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 18 Sep 03:06
In that case, could it be: "Lower your head modestly while passing, and you will harvest bananas"?
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 14:07
Centrism has always seemed an inherently flawed ideology in my opinion: a centrist's views are literally determined by the positions of others. Centrists are essentially people whose morality is determined in opposition to that of others and arises not out of any sense of principle but out of socio-political circumstance.
For example, centrists in the US were the ones who decided to make black Americans 3/5ths of a person when they were working out electoral districts after the civil war.
Centrists in Germany went into coalition with the Nazi party in municipal government in the early 1930s.
Centrists in the UK went into coalition as part of a government which enacted a devastating austerity policy leading to massive suffering.
They did all of these things because they have no principles of their own and everything they think or do is done as a reaction to the thoughts or deeds of others.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Wed 18 Sep 14:33
Quote:
Wotsit, Wed 18 Sep 14:07
Centrism has always seemed an inherently flawed ideology in my opinion: a centrist's views are literally determined by the positions of others. Centrists are essentially people whose morality is determined in opposition to that of others and arises not out of any sense of principle but out of socio-political circumstance.
For example, centrists in the US were the ones who decided to make black Americans 3/5ths of a person when they were working out electoral districts after the civil war.
Centrists in Germany went into coalition with the Nazi party in municipal government in the early 1930s.
Centrists in the UK went into coalition as part of a government which enacted a devastating austerity policy leading to massive suffering.
They did all of these things because they have no principles of their own and everything they think or do is done as a reaction to the thoughts or deeds of others.
Or you could say all the above examples are just examples where self-interest and human behaviour caused bad stuff to happen.
It is an absolute nonsense to argue if you don't sit at either extreme of a spectrum then you cant think for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 18 Sep 15:26
Fair comment wotsit, but in regard to Brexit the Liberal Democrats are not occupying the middle ground. They are taking the polar opposite position to hard Brexiteers: i.e Remain at all costs. The UK electorate were divided on the issue back in 2016 and that is still the case today so far as we can gather, so if anyone is adopting the centre ground in the Brexit debate it is probably Jeremy Corbyn.
The Lib Dems in their various guises have a long tradition of being a pro-European party so they can claim they are being true to their core beliefs. Others might suspect they were damaged goods after the disastrous coalition with the Cameron regime, so have embraced the Remain position with such enthusiasm in order to win back votes from Remainers in the Conservative and Labour Party ranks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 15:30
It is an absolute nonsense to argue if you don't sit at either extreme of a spectrum then you cant think for yourself.
No idea where you got that from.
I was talking about those who define themselves by their Centrism (e.g. the LibDems.)
The centre position is shifting, based on the political weather of the day, therefore Centrists shift with it, in order to remain in the centre.
It has nowt to do with the extremes, sorry for the inconvenience ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 18 Sep 15:43
I prefer the term moderate as opposed to centrist.
It more accurately reflects opposition to the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 15:47
Fair comment wotsit, but in regard to Brexit the Liberal Democrats are not occupying the middle ground. They are taking the polar opposite position to hard Brexiteers: i.e Remain at all costs. The UK electorate were divided on the issue back in 2016 and that is still the case today so far as we can gather, so if anyone is adopting the centre ground in the Brexit debate it is probably Jeremy Corbyn.
The Lib Dems in their various guises have a long tradition of being a pro-European party so they can claim they are being true to their core beliefs. Others might suspect they were damaged goods after the disastrous coalition with the Cameron regime, so have embraced the Remain position with such enthusiasm in order to win back votes from Remainers in the Conservative and Labour Party ranks.
I accept your point re the LibDems and Brexit Sammer, but there's basically no miiddle ground to take with Brexit as far as I can tell.
Corbyn's just dithering. He's trying really hard to be a centrist but he's picked the wrong time for that and he can't quite identify the centre circle in Brexit's ever expanding quagmire of a pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 16:23
Quote:
OzPar, Wed 18 Sep 15:43
I prefer the term moderate as opposed to centrist.
It more accurately reflects opposition to the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
But the extremes are moving according to sociopolitical currents.
Thatcher was a radical in 1978, now she's somewhere in the middle ground and anybody who seeks to, say, renationalise public utilities, is now a dangerous radical. Yet in 1978 the moderate/centrist/political opportunist position was that public utilities should be nationalised.
So what is the true moderate position? Private or national utilities? Both at once? Neither? Somewhere in between depending on what the other guy said?
Post Edited (Wed 18 Sep 16:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 18 Sep 16:33
The middle ground was indirectly spelled out by the UK electorate in 2016, and that ground would have been much the same had the vote gone 52-48 for Remain. The UK wanted a looser relationship with the EU and had that been the negotiating position from the start- involving all major political parties- then the issue would have been largely done and dusted by now.
Instead we have had Brexiteers employing military rhetoric from day one, with the tabloids fantasising about refighting WW2, a conflict in which incidentally UK troops killed less than 20% of Nazi military casualties. Yesterday we had IDS, who I doubt ever saw active service in any conflict, banging on about the war and today Farage is playing out his Biggles fantasy at the EU parliament.
The Remainers have adopted a superior attitude, spending three years trying to overturn a result that left them reeling, denigrating their opponents as racists from wealthy suburbs or uneducated oiks from the north.
The media has been only too happy to play along with these extreme attitudes since conflict sells news. Late in the day Theresa May tried to find that middle ground, and if Johnson wishes to avoid the same fate he will have to do the same. I think there is a growing awareness that Brexit does not end on the day we sign a deal, and certainly not if we crash-out. Our relationship with Europe will have to be rebuilt in a painstaking way over many years and the next PM, whoever that may be, will find themselves running a very volatile country unless some middle ground is established. Language like ‘Let’s get it over with’ is very misleading, echoing Macbeth believing that after killing Duncan he could draw a line under things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 19:22
To be fair, the vote in 2016 showed no such thing. Individuals voted for wildly different reasons and with wildly different expectations.
I do think that the country needs pulling back together, but I wouldn't take it for grated that the middle is necessarily the best place to meet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 19 Sep 05:31
"The UK wanted a looser relationship with the EU"
That was not the question in the referendum. The UK voted to leave the EU. What part of that don't you get??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 19 Sep 17:10
''The UK voted to leave the EU. What part of that don't you get??''
The arithmetic bit. The referendum was advisory, not binding, and came up with a narrow majority to leave. I’ve explained how any sensible government should have acted in relation to that advice.
Failure to respect 48% of voters in any type of election or referendum- to adopt a winner-takes-all interpretation of the result- is a recipe for social disorder as the police themselves have acknowledged. You cannot impose total Brexit on 48% of the voters any more than you can defy the 52% that voted to leave. Unless you are politically excited by disorder of course, and see social breakdown as an opportunity to impose authoritarian rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:11
Whether it was advisory or binding or whatever really isn't relevant. The question was a very simple one, and both sides agreed that they would implement the result.
We're still waiting....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:44
The question may have have sounded like a simple one but the answer wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:44
Sammer, problem is for some things you can't really be half in / half out. You could use the same argument to say 45% voted to leave the UK - so does that mean you can't force the full UK on them?
Post Edited (Thu 19 Sep 18:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:33
DBP,
To be fair we in Scotland don't have the full UK forced on us. We do have a Holyrood Parliament which is a recognition that the 45% who wanted independence are not being ignored. In practical terms that means no academy schools or road tolls for example.
I accept your point that sometimes in politics you either have to get on the bus or get off it. But since I assume we are still going to continue trading, travelling and talking with the EU for the foreseeable future then the very notion of a hard and fast Brexit which cuts all our ties with Europe seems pointless. We will still have to negotiate with the EU in perpetuity, but as outsiders rather than members. I haven't noticed any great negotiating skills on show these last three years either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 20 Sep 15:02
Quote:
sammer, Thu 19 Sep 19:33
DBP,
To be fair we in Scotland don't have the full UK forced on us. We do have a Holyrood Parliament which is a recognition that the 45%]
Don't agree with that, devolution wasn't introduced because indy ref was close and wasn't under threat if we'd voted 100% no
Post Edited (Fri 20 Sep 15:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
