The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated *** Showing 5,251-5,300 of 5,982

[Marc]

R.M.F wrote: "Marc wrote: "Will wrote: "One only has to spend ten minutes on Facebook to discover that all those who voted Remain are sore losers who should suck it up and respect the result.

That those who vot..

For those who don't know, Marc is always taking the mickey out of me on the sports thread. This is payback :) "

Payback? I hadn't noticed.

'Payback' of course is another American word, not a British one

[Jim]

Patti (baconater) wrote: "Thanks Jim. I was unfamiliar with the term."

and it's a modern English usage as well :-)

[B J]

Marc wrote: "he has great powers if the Republican Congress go with him and if he plays the employment, migrants & religious right cards (anti-abortion) they will I reckon.

Expect more radical alterations to ..."

That's true, but it's a very big 'if'. They are professional politicians who are part of the political swamp that he keeps saying he wants to drain. That's hardly talk that is likely to encourage cooperation.

[Patti (baconater)]

It's a noun that's been zerbilised, Jim.

[Marc]

B J wrote: "Marc wrote: "he has great powers if the Republican Congress go with him and if he plays the employment, migrants & religious right cards (anti-abortion) they will I reckon.

Expect more radical al..."

You wait, they will blow like reeds in the wind & succumb to where the power is

[B J]

I'm not so sure. When all those political heavyweights were gathered for the post-inauguration lunch they had a long wait for the president to join them. The coverage kept returning to show what they were up to while waiting. I saw several examples of them clearly mocking Trump's speech.
We'll see. Interesting times we live in.

[Marc]

Don't underestimate the religious Right. Every election they get a pledge of anti-abortion from the Republican candidate and every presidential term they are left adrift on it. Now they have their best chance of finally securing legislation, so they will probably forego on issues that are not so high on their priority list, such as migration, Police powers etc

[David]

Jim wrote: "Patti (baconater) wrote: "Is our group so parochial that the horror show being played out across the pond isn't going to be mentioned?"

The problem is I'm old enough to have seen American presiden..."

Hmmm. Now that I've read your definition of monstered, I would be interested to see the list of American presidents you remember being monstered by Democrats.

[Marc]

Presumably Nixon, but then they were right on that score...

[David]

Marc wrote: "Presumably Nixon, but then they were right on that score..."

Jim's definition mentioned that the monstered person turns out to be innocent. I'm pretty sure this means Nixon's not on the list, although perhaps some believe he was monstered about issues other than the ones for which he resigned and was pardoned by his successor.

[Marc]

Bush Jnr was monstered for being a moron, but again they were right

[Jim]

Patti (baconater) wrote: "It's a noun that's been zerbilised, Jim."

Seems in its current form to have been used at least as early as the 1990s

[Jim]

David wrote: "JHmmm. Now that I've read your definition of monstered, I would be interested to see the list of American presidents you remember being monstered by Democrats...."

Ronnie obviously
George W who they basically painted as a barely sentient muppet
Actually Jimmy Carter didn't exactly get a lot of support from the party because he wasn't really one of theirs

[Jim]

Marc wrote: "Presumably Nixon, but then they were right on that score..."

I left Nixon out of the count, because he was hardly one of America's finest presidents
But he got America out of Vietnam, and made peace with China which reduced the damage losing the war could do.

(Something which the Sino-Vietnamese war rather helped in in the longer term)

The exact opposite process is the canonisation of JFK who frankly was a better president dead :-(

[David]

Jim wrote: "David wrote: "JHmmm. Now that I've read your definition of monstered, I would be interested to see the list of American presidents you remember being monstered by Democrats...."

Ronnie obviously
G..."

Now that I see what you mean, I suspect "insulted" would be a better term than "monstered." Reagan and G.W. Bush were certainly insulted repeatedly by various democrats and media, often for statements they made that opponents seized on to make them look stupid. That is an American political activity with a long and bipartisan history. It's neither nice nor fair, but it's not quite the same as "being accused of something for which you're later proven innocent."

Reagan's legacy seems to have survived the fray intact. Every time I fly out of Washington, I do it from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

[Marc]

Reagan now been lionised by Trump

[Jim]

Insulted is more moderate.

Mind you, if you look at average approval ratings

Obama 48.0
Bush (G.W.) 49.4
Clinton 55.1
Bush (G.H.W.) 60.9
Reagan 52.8
Carter 45.5
Ford 47.2
Nixon 49.1

[David]

Jim wrote: "Insulted is more moderate.

Mind you, if you look at average approval ratings

Obama 48.0
Bush (G.W.) 49.4
Clinton 55.1
Bush (G.H.W.) 60.9
Reagan 52.8
Carter 45.5
Ford 47.2
Nixon 49.1"

Striking that the highest and lowest approval ratings on this list are for the only one-term presidents. (I exclude Ford because, well, he never won a presidential election.)

[Jim]

And the fact that so many of them finish their presidency with a lower approval rating at the end than at the beginning (even if the end might be higher than the middle) which gives support to Enoch Powells comment that "All Political Careers end in failure"

[David]

Jim wrote: "And the fact that so many of them finish their presidency with a lower approval rating at the end than at the beginning (even if the end might be higher than the middle) which gives support to Enoc..."

It's hard to go out a winner. Just ask Roger Federer. And, again from tennis, Pete Sampras is quite the outlier, retiring after winning the US Open one last time. And even he expressed regrets that he had retired too soon.

[Jim]

probably especially hard when you have a fixed term presidency

[Patti (baconater)]

So, have I got this right?

The British high court has ruled that the brexit thing has to go to parliament to be voted on whether it will be enforced?

So who has the most votes in parliament then? Remain or exit?

[Michael]

It's hard to say exact numbers as the referendum regions weren't broken up into the same constituent regions that MPs represent.

I'd be surprised if the activation of A50 was rejected outright though.

[R.M.F.]

One unintended consequence of the SC ruling is that EVEL has been blown out of the water.

The judges ruled that Westminster is sovereign, devolved administrations have no authority on this etc etc

Power devolved is power retained etc etc

So the Commons can't then turn around and ask Scottish MPs to leave when the House deals with 'English' only matters.

[R.M.F.]

Michael Cargill wrote: "It's hard to say exact numbers as the referendum regions weren't broken up into the same constituent regions that MPs represent.

I'd be surprised if the activation of A50 was rejected outright tho..."

Events have overtaken the legal process. Politics has won out.

[Jim]

I was discussing this with my daughter. The legal process, the appeal to the Supreme court was important because we're seeing a drift in power
For example in UK law only the crown has the power to declare war, effectively this means the Prime Minister. Making treaties and ending war come under pretty much the same remit.
The importance of this case is that it hands a little bit of power from the crown to parliament and meant the case was worth debating, ignoring Brexit.

With regard to the realities, of the Brexit vote, daughter pointed out to me that various wise people have looked at the voting areas etc and have decided that if it had been a general election, leave would have got a larger majority than it had of the popular vote. So rather more MPs are at risk if they vote against their constituents than you might assume.

With regard the devolved administrations, the immediate effect is that SNP attempts to blackmail Westminster by 'withholding consent' have no traction, any more than it would from a deputation from Manchester and Liverpool

Longer term legal implications for them remain to be explored. It may mean that any referendum launched in Scotland without Westminster consent could be challenged in the Scottish courts (which the right of appeal) by Scots, perhaps with costs awarded against the party pushing for the referendum rather than against the Scottish government

[Marc]

R.M.F wrote: "One unintended consequence of the SC ruling is that EVEL has been blown out of the water.

The judges ruled that Westminster is sovereign, devolved administrations have no authority on this etc et..

So the Commons can't then turn around and ask Scottish MPs to leave when the House deals with 'English' only matters.
."

Yes they can, if you read the judgement it was disallowed because foreign policy matters have to be decided for the UK as a whole, therefore cannot be devolved. Local administrative matters can be devolved, so off you pop and let the grown ups carry on screwing your futures

[R.M.F.]

As a supporter of Scottish independence, the Supreme Court confirmed in black and white that Westminster can remove power from the devolved administrations at any time it wants, Westminster being the higher authority.

So effectively, Britain is Greater England, and Scotland has been reduced to colony status.

Crown dependencies have more powers than Scotland, and we're supposed to be an equal partner in this sham of a Union.

England is 85% of the UK, and its many MPs can overrule the rest of the UK at any time it wants.

Today's judgement is a massive boost for the cause I support, so the judges should be thanked for their clarity on the issue.

[Jim]

Actually the reason that Scotland isn't independent isn't that the English courts forbade it.
It's that the Scots voted against it

[David]

Jim wrote: So rather more MPs are at risk if they vote against their constituents than you might assume.

Or possibly not. My constituency voted 59/41 for Remain. Our MP is arch-brexiteer John Redwood. He's not particularly popular locally, being considered by most to be bonkers. But a donkey with a Conservative label would get elected here. An awful lot of voting is still tribal.

[Marc]

R.M.F wrote: "As a supporter of Scottish independence, the Supreme Court confirmed in black and white that Westminster can remove power from the devolved administrations at any time it wants, Westminster being t...

So effectively, Britain is Greater England, and Scotland has been reduced to colony status. "


T'was ever thus, as designed by the 1707 Act Of Union

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "Actually the reason that Scotland isn't independent isn't that the English courts forbade it.
It's that the Scots voted against it"

No argument there. But Westminster's duplicity and such statements as 'federalism' and 'the most powerful devolved administration in the world' and my favourite 'partnership of equals,' has only muddied the waters.

If we had a proper federal system with rights and responsibilities outlined in a written constitution, instead of this unwritten constitution bollocks, we'd all know where we stand...

[Marc]

you say that but Trump is very possibly going to rip America's written constitution up

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: "If we had a proper federal system with rights and responsibilities outlined in a written constitution, instead of this unwritten constitution bollocks, we'd all know where we stand... ..."

given that there appears to be no appetite for it amongst a majority of the population of the UK it is unlikely to happen.
The Labour party tried splitting up English regions to balance things and when they put it to a vote in the first region (which they thought they'd win) it was comprehensively thrown out

[Marc]

well if May pulls us out of the ECHR there was talk of a written UK Bill of Rights, don't know if that is still the thinking

[R.M.F.]

Marc wrote: "you say that but Trump is very possibly going to rip America's written constitution up"

He'd probably keep the second amendment as red meat to throw to his supporters.

[R.M.F.]

Marc wrote: "well if May pulls us out of the ECHR there was talk of a written UK Bill of Rights, don't know if that is still the thinking"

It's still there, waiting to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public.

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "If we had a proper federal system with rights and responsibilities outlined in a written constitution, instead of this unwritten constitution bollocks, we'd all know where we stand......"

So the muddle muddles along for a few more decades :(

English apathy must surely end some day? I hope.

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

I'll sign up for th revolution. I'm so disillusioned these days I think every politician from councillors upwards should be sacked, their assets from politicking sequestrated and start again from scratch.

[Marc]

Lynne I've believed for some time we no longer need the layer of politicians to represent us, since we can use online technology to have we the people vote on anything and everything we need to. However the recent debacles of referenda and the success of demagogy of Trump, the likely Russian penetration of the election campaign and Fake News means that the people are not to be trusted with such power. Besides, they'd have to stop swiping left on Tinder or give up a night's drinking down at the pub in order to take the time to consider the issues before voting on them.

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: "English apathy must surely end some day? I hope..."

given the howling success of those written constitutions, it strikes me that the English are going to take a lot of convincing that they're worth the effort

[Jim]

Marc wrote: "Lynne I've believed for some time we no longer need the layer of politicians to represent us, since we can use online technology to have we the people vote on anything and everything we need to. Ho..."

not only that but it would probably be far too easy for somebody to hack into a system, and the security protocols to try and stop this would be so strict that legitimate voters would probably not be able to log on :-(

But yes, like you Marc I used to think it was a good idea as well :-(

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

The other day on a daytime TV quiz show, Pointless,contestants h to identify politicians from a all of photographs. I was shaken to her a woman guess Theresa May. Justifying it with "I've heard the name, but I don't know what she looks like". She's got equal voting rights to you and I.
On the other hand just to show I'm not a hypocrite but that Hamon bloke who had the biggest percentage of the PS voting on Sunday was totally unknown to me and I do take an interest.

[David]

Historically, the not-obviously-democratic Emperor Napoleon III used plebiscites.

The ancient Greek philosophers starting with Plato and continuing with Polybius thought about government cycling (Kyklos) between Democracy, Oligarchy and Tyranny.

Greek democracy was of the 'everyone participates' variety. Representative democracy seems to have proved to be more stable once it progresses beyond 'one man one vote once'.

If the arguments of Polybius are valid, trying to make more use of direct consultation of the electorate increases the danger of oligarchy and tyranny.

[Marc]

The German Constitution bans plebiscites because it tends to lead to Hitlers

[Jim]

Remember that in our terms Greek Democracy was massively restricted.
no women voters, and the majority population of the city, the slaves, didn't vote either.

[Jim]

Marc wrote: "The German Constitution bans plebiscites because it tends to lead to Hitlers"

you might find this article interesting, not on plebiscites but on data use and canvassing

https://antidotezine.com/2017/01/22/t...

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

Very interesting Jim.

[Marc]

thanks Jim, that looks well interesting and will form my lunchtime reading

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "English apathy must surely end some day? I hope..."

given the howling success of those written constitutions, it strikes me that the English are going to take a lot of convincing tha..."

Federalism is dead in the water, it's the only way to save the Union in my book, so independence is therefore inevitable.

As I've said before, I'm an Anglophile, but England has decided to bank its future on the likes of second hand car salesmen like Farage, clowns like Boris Johnson, and corrupt lackeys like Liam Fox, who will run England into the ground.

I wish England the very best, but it's not a vision of the future I want to be part of.