| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit 18:56 - Oct 31 with 6554 views | ElderGrizzly |
That’s all that mattered to Cummings and the Tory power brokers
|  | | |  |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:05 - Nov 1 with 1443 views | lowhouseblue |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 09:50 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
So people should have voted for a sh!t deal they didn't believe was in the country's best interests? There's a lot of hindsight at play here and a weird refusal to point the finger at those actually responsible for our demise. |
they shouldn't have tried to negate the referendum result and they should have anticipated the consequences of using parliamentary tactics to obstruct it. the question i replied to was 'how did we end up with boris' - the answer is parliament failing to implement the referendum result (and with a better outcome available than we have ended up with) is why we ended up with boris. alas too many people didn't foresee the outcome of those tactics, or realise where the electorate were on it, because of delusional stuff about the referendum being fixed and voters being tricked. (to be clear - i voted remain, but having lost i knew that the consequences of not implementing the result would be awful as i posted on here at the time). |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:09 - Nov 1 with 1410 views | chicoazul |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 09:09 - Nov 1 by Churchman |
The ToR is here.
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/terms-of-reference/#:~:text=its%20wo
There is nothing wrong with this. Aim 2 is the key one. Lessons learned. Will they be learned? History says not but this is not something that should be given up on just because our politicians are what they are. The pits of the earth.
Yes, we can all have a good stab at what went on. Me more than many, having been close enough to see what happened with Brexit preparations 2017-2019. But having emails, notes, messages and QCs cross examination of the key players is helpful. It exposes what these people are, their competence and credibility, how they deal with each other and others along with the back story of why they are in politics - very much for the selfish reasons you give.
So the cost is £millions. That’s nothing to the cost of this disaster both financial, the lives it took and the people affected. If it helps expose and reform government and how it behaves 1% then to me it’s worth it. We cannot carry on as we are.
Watching Cummings nailed to the wall yesterday was interesting to me. Whether Johnson shows his stupid face will be even more interesting. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 11:46]
|
In what way is it interesting? Who cares? What’s the point? No lessons will be learnt; nothing will change. This is yet another opportunity for the elite class in this country to spend our money on arguing in public, like two fleas over a dog. It’s ridiculous.
Of course some people said some dumb stuff during a difficult time. Literally who cares? It’s totally unimportant. Trying to understand why we bankrupted our country over a virus would be interesting if that’s what this was all about but it isn’t. It’s the usual sickening sight of our elite class having a high, gay old time at our expense. |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:34 - Nov 1 with 1353 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:05 - Nov 1 by lowhouseblue |
they shouldn't have tried to negate the referendum result and they should have anticipated the consequences of using parliamentary tactics to obstruct it. the question i replied to was 'how did we end up with boris' - the answer is parliament failing to implement the referendum result (and with a better outcome available than we have ended up with) is why we ended up with boris. alas too many people didn't foresee the outcome of those tactics, or realise where the electorate were on it, because of delusional stuff about the referendum being fixed and voters being tricked. (to be clear - i voted remain, but having lost i knew that the consequences of not implementing the result would be awful as i posted on here at the time). |
If only everyone was as smart as you, eh. |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:40 - Nov 1 with 1337 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:05 - Nov 1 by lowhouseblue |
they shouldn't have tried to negate the referendum result and they should have anticipated the consequences of using parliamentary tactics to obstruct it. the question i replied to was 'how did we end up with boris' - the answer is parliament failing to implement the referendum result (and with a better outcome available than we have ended up with) is why we ended up with boris. alas too many people didn't foresee the outcome of those tactics, or realise where the electorate were on it, because of delusional stuff about the referendum being fixed and voters being tricked. (to be clear - i voted remain, but having lost i knew that the consequences of not implementing the result would be awful as i posted on here at the time). |
I think it was probably six of one and half a dozen of the other because May's agreement (which didn't impose a border down the Irish Sea) could have been implemented if all Tory MPs and the DUP voted for it. But I agree that those on the People's Referendum side played a very bad hand both constitutionally (by seeking to overturn the Brexit vote) and tactically (by ending up with the hardest Brexit possible). [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 10:41]
|  | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:56 - Nov 1 with 1306 views | Blueschev |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:34 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
If only everyone was as smart as you, eh. |
To be fair, it's difficult to disagree with what he's saying. The "People's Vote" campaign was a patronising disaster, and if Parliament had accepted the result and worked constructively make the the transition less painful rather than hope that it just wouldn't happen, we would have been far less likely to have had Johnson and his simple but incredibly effective "Get Brexit Done" campaign. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 10:58]
|  | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:37 - Nov 1 with 1270 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:56 - Nov 1 by Blueschev |
To be fair, it's difficult to disagree with what he's saying. The "People's Vote" campaign was a patronising disaster, and if Parliament had accepted the result and worked constructively make the the transition less painful rather than hope that it just wouldn't happen, we would have been far less likely to have had Johnson and his simple but incredibly effective "Get Brexit Done" campaign. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 10:58]
|
I think that's a gross oversimplification personally. It ignores that May had already drawn red lines that made constructively working towards a good deal almost impossible and had then called a GE to try to empower her to force through a deal at any cost, which then backfired spectacularly. Expecting everyone else to find a way to clear up the mess May and the Tories had created (before even taking account of the shambolic negotiations) is a bit much. And it's not like there was no public support for a second referendum once people knew what Brexit might actually look like. It wasn't just a few fanatics trying to force it on people. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:46 - Nov 1 with 1255 views | Blueschev |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:37 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
I think that's a gross oversimplification personally. It ignores that May had already drawn red lines that made constructively working towards a good deal almost impossible and had then called a GE to try to empower her to force through a deal at any cost, which then backfired spectacularly. Expecting everyone else to find a way to clear up the mess May and the Tories had created (before even taking account of the shambolic negotiations) is a bit much. And it's not like there was no public support for a second referendum once people knew what Brexit might actually look like. It wasn't just a few fanatics trying to force it on people. |
I think the appetite for a second referendum was demonstrated well by the huge Tory majority achieved by campaign based almost exclusively on "getting Brexit done". | | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:58 - Nov 1 with 1229 views | bluelagos |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:46 - Nov 1 by Blueschev |
I think the appetite for a second referendum was demonstrated well by the huge Tory majority achieved by campaign based almost exclusively on "getting Brexit done". |
43.6% voted Tory in 2019 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:02 - Nov 1 with 1203 views | Churchman |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 10:09 - Nov 1 by chicoazul |
In what way is it interesting? Who cares? What’s the point? No lessons will be learnt; nothing will change. This is yet another opportunity for the elite class in this country to spend our money on arguing in public, like two fleas over a dog. It’s ridiculous.
Of course some people said some dumb stuff during a difficult time. Literally who cares? It’s totally unimportant. Trying to understand why we bankrupted our country over a virus would be interesting if that’s what this was all about but it isn’t. It’s the usual sickening sight of our elite class having a high, gay old time at our expense. |
I certainly care. I suspect there are plenty of people who unnecessarily lost loved ones care too.
If there is no enquiry the next step is further clamping down on freedom of speech and freedom of information. A bit of a quantum leap but the outcome is what the Johnsons and Cummings of this world want. Johnson has clearly resorted to ‘losing’ all his messages. An accident I’m sure. Shame non political people like the experts the Tories loathe retained theirs. In any case, anything politicians want, in other words this disaster to go away, I want the opposite.
You are probably right. No good will come of it, I’m sure but you never know. At least the harassment and bullying culture in government might recede a little if nothing else.
Watching yesterday, they are not arguing like fleas on a dog. They are busy blaming each other while being asked questions based on submissions by a QC. The ‘elite class’ are the ones under scrutiny. I like to think this helps understand the decision making process or lack of it that bankrupted this country and killed 1000s. |  | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:07 - Nov 1 with 1198 views | Radlett_blue |
The reason Johnson got the job as Tory leader & PM was simply because he appeared the only candidate who could deliver Brexit, without which the Tory party would have fractured into oblivion. So no wonder Tory MPs & members voted him in. As a clever populist, he also picked up a lot of votes from working class Tories - and there are/were far more of them around than some people on here might think.
Yes, Johnson was a totally inappropriate person to hold high office. |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:11 - Nov 1 with 1165 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:58 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
43.6% voted Tory in 2019 |
Although in England, where the votes really mattered, the Tories, UKIP and the Brexit Party got just shy of 50% of the vote between them. And not all of those who voted the other way would have wanted a second referendum. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 12:12]
| | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:16 - Nov 1 with 1135 views | bluelagos |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:11 - Nov 1 by DJR |
Although in England, where the votes really mattered, the Tories, UKIP and the Brexit Party got just shy of 50% of the vote between them. And not all of those who voted the other way would have wanted a second referendum. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 12:12]
|
Absolutely - but to present the results of the 2019 election as an endorsement of Brexit is bobbins. Not only did the Brexit supporting parties not get 50% - even of they had - elections are fought on more than 1 issue.
Brexit undoubtedly won the Tories the election - but that is not the same as a referendum result on one issue.
I actually think putting the deal to the electorate would be democratic - but can see why Brexiteers wouldn't agree. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:32 - Nov 1 with 1093 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:16 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
Absolutely - but to present the results of the 2019 election as an endorsement of Brexit is bobbins. Not only did the Brexit supporting parties not get 50% - even of they had - elections are fought on more than 1 issue.
Brexit undoubtedly won the Tories the election - but that is not the same as a referendum result on one issue.
I actually think putting the deal to the electorate would be democratic - but can see why Brexiteers wouldn't agree. |
Sorry, my post was aimed at support for a second referendum which I don't think was as strong as those advocating it thought.
And for my own part (as someone who campaigned on the streets for Remain), I thought that putting the deal to a referendum was undemocratic because it was really attempting to overturn the Brexit vote. | | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:37 - Nov 1 with 1066 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 11:46 - Nov 1 by Blueschev |
I think the appetite for a second referendum was demonstrated well by the huge Tory majority achieved by campaign based almost exclusively on "getting Brexit done". |
The Tories won a landslide on circa 43% of the vote because of the vagaries of our electoral system. A greater share of the public vote went to parties supporting a second referendum and/or remain, so I'm not sure that your point holds. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:39 - Nov 1 with 1049 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:11 - Nov 1 by DJR |
Although in England, where the votes really mattered, the Tories, UKIP and the Brexit Party got just shy of 50% of the vote between them. And not all of those who voted the other way would have wanted a second referendum. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 12:12]
|
Not all Tory voters were in favour of leaving either, that cuts both ways. Using the GE as an indicator of public support for a referendum or leave/remain is not solid ground on which to tread. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:41 - Nov 1 with 1042 views | bluelagos |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:32 - Nov 1 by DJR |
Sorry, my post was aimed at support for a second referendum which I don't think was as strong as those advocating it thought.
And for my own part (as someone who campaigned on the streets for Remain), I thought that putting the deal to a referendum was undemocratic because it was really attempting to overturn the Brexit vote. |
When the country voted to leave in 2016 - no one knew what leave what look like. How could they - the deal was still to be negotiated and there were literally dozens of possible scenarios / outcomes - even Farage once parroted the virtues of the single market showing just how much the eventual deal was from what many leave voters would have thought probable.
Presenting that final deal to the electorate - how can that be undemocratic?
What we have is a deal that many leave voters (those who supported economic but not political union) would not support - yet we don't get a say in it.
Most frustrating - and I half agree with Lowhouse here - is that if on day 1 May says that the close nature of the vote means we need to embrace a close relationship with the EU (like say the single market) - then I think people would reluctantly have accepted that as a compromise.
Instead we end up with a sh1t deal and all the economic damage that comes with it. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:41 - Nov 1 with 1041 views | Radlett_blue |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:37 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
The Tories won a landslide on circa 43% of the vote because of the vagaries of our electoral system. A greater share of the public vote went to parties supporting a second referendum and/or remain, so I'm not sure that your point holds. |
Yes, but in the same way as not all Tories were Brexiteers, not all Labour voters wanted a second referendum. As you said, people vote for a party for all sorts of reasons, many of which are perverse. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:43 - Nov 1 with 1037 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:32 - Nov 1 by DJR |
Sorry, my post was aimed at support for a second referendum which I don't think was as strong as those advocating it thought.
And for my own part (as someone who campaigned on the streets for Remain), I thought that putting the deal to a referendum was undemocratic because it was really attempting to overturn the Brexit vote. |
If you look at contemporaneous polling, support for a second referendum (and indeed, remain) was pretty strong in 2019: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47693645 | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:47 - Nov 1 with 1021 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:41 - Nov 1 by Radlett_blue |
Yes, but in the same way as not all Tories were Brexiteers, not all Labour voters wanted a second referendum. As you said, people vote for a party for all sorts of reasons, many of which are perverse. |
Yes, I've acknowledged that on both sides there will have been people who didn't support Brexit/second referendum. That's why the GE shouldn't be used as the main arbiter of public support for Brexit and/or a second referendum. There's lots of polling available on those specific issues that gives a picture of what the public were thinking at the time. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:24 - Nov 1 with 980 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 08:58 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
Sarah Vine makes some interesting points, amongst some laughable nonsense. (Her comments on Valence and Whitty are very much from a lockdown sceptic position)
Her argument is basically that Cummings and Cain hated that Johnson wasn't as easy to manipulate as they expected/wanted. On that, I think she has a point. The puppeteers discovered that the PM rightly has the power here. Just a shame the bloke they put in charge was so hopeless when it came to making a decision, leading and giving clear direction to those around him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12695363/SARAH-VINE-heard-saw-justify |
Johnson was too busy laughing at the Italians apparently
| | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:26 - Nov 1 with 977 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 12:41 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
When the country voted to leave in 2016 - no one knew what leave what look like. How could they - the deal was still to be negotiated and there were literally dozens of possible scenarios / outcomes - even Farage once parroted the virtues of the single market showing just how much the eventual deal was from what many leave voters would have thought probable.
Presenting that final deal to the electorate - how can that be undemocratic?
What we have is a deal that many leave voters (those who supported economic but not political union) would not support - yet we don't get a say in it.
Most frustrating - and I half agree with Lowhouse here - is that if on day 1 May says that the close nature of the vote means we need to embrace a close relationship with the EU (like say the single market) - then I think people would reluctantly have accepted that as a compromise.
Instead we end up with a sh1t deal and all the economic damage that comes with it. |
But what would the question have been, which I don't think those demanding a second referendum ever properly answered?
I don't think it would have been democratic to be a choice between "the Deal" and "no Brexit". Instead, I think the question would have to have been "Do you accept the Deal?" but what would have been the consequence if people had said "no"? A renegotiation and a vote on another deal? | | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:28 - Nov 1 with 961 views | DJR |
But this from John Curtice's article is perhaps key.
"In truth, the polls are too close for opponents of Brexit to assume that a second ballot would produce a different result." | | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:29 - Nov 1 with 950 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:26 - Nov 1 by DJR |
But what would the question have been, which I don't think those demanding a second referendum ever properly answered?
I don't think it would have been democratic to be a choice between "the Deal" and "no Brexit". Instead, I think the question would have to have been "Do you accept the Deal?" but what would have been the consequence if people had said "no"? A renegotiation and a vote on another deal? |
I think the second referendum campaign was always clear that it was the negotiated deal (aka Brexit reality) versus remain. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:30 - Nov 1 with 942 views | bluelagos |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:26 - Nov 1 by DJR |
But what would the question have been, which I don't think those demanding a second referendum ever properly answered?
I don't think it would have been democratic to be a choice between "the Deal" and "no Brexit". Instead, I think the question would have to have been "Do you accept the Deal?" but what would have been the consequence if people had said "no"? A renegotiation and a vote on another deal? |
"Do you wish the country to accept the proposed deal or to remain in the EU?" | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:32 - Nov 1 with 926 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:30 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
"Do you wish the country to accept the proposed deal or to remain in the EU?" |
Indeed. I don't recall there ever being any doubt that this was what was being proposed. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
