schmittel wrote: » Johnson will be thanking his lucky stars today for the likes of Tom Watson and Ian Austin.https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1192344910378209280
Christy42 wrote: » If you do it the same way with a complete iron fist then yes. Though I think the user also said Switzerland so maybe they are more interested in freedom of movement?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is it even remotely possible to run a country as diverse as the UK is on the Singaporean model?
Leroy42 wrote: » Isn't Singapore basically a centralised state? So big government?
murphaph wrote: » Yeah it's laughable the comparison with Singapore. The irony of moaning about the supposed undemocratic EU and simultaneous praise of one party Singapore is lost on them.
Deleted User wrote: » So you've moved away from my economic points toward now the democratic argument?
Deleted User wrote: » A "few democratic controls"? I can go one better. How about no controls whatsoever, by leaving the European Union and restoring all controls to the parliament in London.
Deleted User wrote: » I've made abundantly clear that I'm referring to the abstract principle of "independence". If by that term, some describe it as "generating your own legislation through the means by directly elected MPs", then the European Union is well outside that scope.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » How democratic do you think Singapore is to be so successful? If the UK wants to emulate it then they're going to have to ditch non Tory parties and become a single party state. Am interesting contrast is that Singapore has had only had three Prime ministers since independence, whereas the UK has had three since the referendum.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The UK democratic system is far from perfect. I've never stated otherwise. Personally, I believe there should be proportional representation; a dissolution of the House of Lords and its replacement with a democratically-elected senate; and clarity over postal voting. In terms of "austerity", that's a political term at the best of times. I personally believe that austerity is a necessary evil and that spending your way out of economic difficulty is not a good thing; I believe that irrespective of whether it's a Labour or Tory government in power.
Deleted User wrote: » a) Wars were caused via a lack of democracy (see Germany, twice). The idea that, without the EU we'd be back in the trenches, is absolutely absurd.
Deleted User wrote: » This is literally the worst economic argument I've ever, ever, EVER come across. You are somehow assuming that population size can be equated with economic success? You dare compare the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) with Congo, Tanzania, and Myanmar, and expect to take you seriously? I have clearly compared Singapore and Switzerland etc. with economic independence and success, and that the UK - should it decide to - can reorient in a similar direction. This is beyond the pale of expectation. To offer a quote, this argument "really holds no water".
BonnieSituation wrote: » I've no time for Rudd. But Windrush was all on May. Rudd took the fall.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Again, I'll ignore your snide comment.Here is an interesting and in depth academic research and analysis of why people voted to Leave in 2016, A quote: Although feelings about the David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were not influential, feelings about Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage had highly significant effects (p < 0.001). Controlling for the influence of all other predictors, positive images of the leaders of the Leave campaign significantly enhanced the likelihood of voting to exit the EU. Another quote: Leader image cues provided by Farage and Johnson were influential too. In Farage’s case, as ‘feeling thermometer’ scores about him moved from the bottom 10 per cent to the top 10 per cent along the 0–10 ‘likeability’ scale, the probability of voting Leave increased by 0.36 points. The comparable probability change as feelings about Johnson became increasingly positive was somewhat larger, 0.42 points.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » well yes any association with that bunch of murdering rabble is hardly going to boost his electoral chances. do you really need me to explain that to you? if you lie down with a pig, there's a good chance you'll stink to high heaven when you get up to leave.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » i said "could". i did not say it would affect the results of the election. please try reading it before you comment on somebody's posting.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are bluffing, here is what you said: Letwin_Larry wrote: » yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election. That's what you were asked about. But you pretended you never said it would have an effect. :rolleyes:
Letwin_Larry wrote: » yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.
schmittel wrote: » Out of interest what facts do you have that support your opinion that there are people who "believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator." I haven't seen any evidence of that theory anywhere. Have you? Without such evidence it is repetitive and tedious waffle, simply a belief devoid of reality or fact.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » well yes any association with that bunch of murdering rabble is hardly going to boost his electoral chances. do you really need me to explain that to you? if you lie down with a pig, there's a good chance you'll stink to high heaven when you get up to leave. but for the record here is where i actually agreed with Joe_Public that the impact on the election will be minimal. the comment by Joe was very prescient as the news of Tom Watson quitting was just breaking. Perhaps there is a stink attaching to corbyn and his comrades, or are we to believe his resignation was purely for "personal reasons"?
Letwin_Larry wrote: corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Though you quoted my post, I'm going to assume you're not accusing me of bullying or bile. I understand fully why many people voted Leave. They were lied to. They believed Farage and Johnson. Fast forward three years. Three years of debate and argument ad nauseam. Three years to inform oneself of the realities via those debates and arguments. Britain now has a choice. To continue to "believe in Brexit" or to apply logic to fact. Those that continue to believe in Brexit because Johnson is a great orator who will "Get Brexit Done" need to be called out on their belief. Because they weren't challenged in 2016 to support their 'belief' with fact is precisely why Britain, and Ireland, are in this stupid position of Britain leaving the EU. Anyone can come on this thread and adopt any position they like on Brexit. However, if it is unsupported by fact then it is not "a reasonable position to hold". It becomes repetitive and tedious waffle. If it is simply belief devoid of reality or fact then they should be challenged to prove their claims with fact, truth and reality. Otherwise, I'd be better off reading The Express.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You single out the IRA as being particularly callous and as the only child killers then said that if Johnson brought Corbyns association with the IRA up it would have an effect on the election.Where we meant to think you meant a 'good effect'? You are dodging here.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » you're probably right, but i have no doubt bojo & co will remind him of his past associations with mass murderers during this campaign and especially during the TV debates, if for no other reason "than to hear him deny it"
Deleted User wrote: » Yet again, Brexit viewed through the prism of economics. It's such a narrow-minded, elitist perspective.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I wasn't referring to you. You need to read my post in the context of your post in its totality.
hotmail.com wrote: » So Amber Rudd is a moderate now? No memory of her time as Home Secretary - the anti immigrant stuff and the Windrush Scandal which she resigned over. And referred to Diane Abbot as a coloured woman. But she opposed Brexit so she must be a moderate!
schmittel wrote: » I am not sure as you seem to be that is always black and white what is "simply belief devoid of reality or fact". There is seemingly no fact or definable reality in my post about the hypothetical voter - is that thus what you mean by tedious waffle?
Headshot wrote: » He's basically built his career on lying and the Tories much like the Republicans with Trump (for the most part) accept it for what he is and constantly back him. I can never understand how some Tories like the likes of Amber Rudd even went into cabinet with him. Unfortunately the Tory moderates have all but vanished from the party and what's left is shadow of what the Tories were.
