Westminstenders: Run Forrest Run

[RedToothBrush]

Need i say more?

@Clavinova, I see you are resorting to the ad hominem approach.

I take it the articles I posted from outlets representing healthcare workers' concerns on PPE have presented material not amenable to hair splitting.

"absurdities like the EU working time directive"

Many Uk workers already work too many hours for their health and many others can't get enough hours - that's what is absurd

The working time directive gives protection to many workers - not to all in the UK, because of the opt out, but it was the decision of the UK to demand it

It is not the function of a national broascaster to lie, which is what most of your "talk positively" would mean

The otthers are hopes or fantasies

"Talking positively about new trade opportunities"

When losing frictionless access to our nearest and by far our largest trading partner,
to which about 45% of UK exports go

• how could the BBC be truthfully positive about the 0.16% increase in GDP over 15 years that the government itself has calculated a US trade deal would bring

• or the even lower or possibly negative result a NZ deal would bring

Crikey Math that's a lot of questions for me to answer. To pick up on one thing you wrote, no sneer directed against Ireland was intended. I apologize if that's how that remark appeared to you!

On repeat referendums, the document I linked to said "once in a generation" I think that is generally accepted to mean around 25 years. Our EU membership lasted 43 years, so lets say another referendum would be legit for me at about 30 years onwards.

Not sure what your point was on General Elections, they happen to a known timetable unless agreed otherwise by Parliament and the result is the result. I've never yet lived through an election where the result was contested after it was reported. All GE results in my lifetime have been legitimate.

"The result of a by-election that completely changes the balance of power in the House of Commons?" Not sure when that has ever happened but if a Govt lost a bye and lost its majority then a GE would surely follow the loss of a "confidence" vote.

"Party leaders chosen by party members can become PM without ever having to submit themselves to public scrutiny?" Don't like this at all generally. Perhaps May should have moved faster towards a GE in 2016 but I can appreciate why she didn't. Waiting until 2017 since we'd just had the referendum in summer '16 wasn't exactly unreasonable IMO.

In politics, because no government can bind the next, a generation = a political cycle - as in, the life cycle of that government.

And given the life span of recent governments, I reckon we have gone through 2 generations since Cameron's purely advisory referendum

@BigChocFrenzy

The referendum was legally advisory only

Cameron's promises - or BJ's promises - were no more legally binding than those of any party leader in a manifesto,
i.e. zero

This again FFS! Bigchoc read the document, page 20.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf

"Legally advisory" fine, you stick to that line if it soothes you.

If you think it's credible that having issued the advice above to every household in the UK the Government could after the results were in have said:

"Fuck you! We're doing the opposite of what you've voted for. The UK is Leaving the EU after Remain triumphed in the referendum we've just held." then I can't help you further.

You are talking politics, as distinct from legality

A government may be elected with a huge majority and then decide that its main manifesto policy is not possible in the way they promised

MPs are not delegates
They also cannot be bound by a decision of a previous Parliament, or referendum
That is an essential part of the British constitution
Otherwise, future governments would continually be forced into carrying out promises of their predecessors, it they promised something that takes years to do

How would you feel if a 52:48 majority meant the Trident missiles had to be removed and the submarines sold off,
even if the government thought it wasn't a good idea ?
If a new government from another party came in before this was finished, would they be forced to go through it, even if they totally disagreed

The question was asked in Parliament and the answer is recorded in Hansard
The referendum was advisory only

Even a binding referendum can be ignored by Parliament,
because Parliament can repeal any bill that its predecessors passed

For someone who wants things to be done the British way, you seem ignorant of the British Constitution

An overwhelming result, such as the 67:33 Remain victory in 1975 does indeed politically - but not legally - close down the issue for a generation

In fact, I remember at the time that this victory was regarded by even some Remain supporters as slightly disappointing,
only the bare minimum for a major constitutional change

A 52:48 victory by either side is just "unfinished business"
.... as Farage was saying shortly before the referendum when he though Leave might lose by 52:48

A couple of convincing lies, bad weather, psyops are just a few of the several factors that can swing 2% one way on one day

An accurate observation from DGR a couple of pages ago: "Part of the problem now - and it's very much Louises problem, is that instead of getting on with it, Leavers seem determined to rerun all the arguments in favour of Leave. Which I can't help but feel is a sign of a guilty conscience."

This is all ancient history now. The damage is still to come.

Louise - re the briefing room - you didn't like the messengers but did you find fault with any of the viewpoints?

A very late pmk😁

"Fuck you! We're doing the opposite of what you've voted for. The UK is Leaving the EU after Remain triumphed in the referendum we've just held." then I can't help you further.

@LouiseCollins28
Do you realise that literally nobody in government even now knows what 'Leaving the EU' actually means?

They didn't in 2016 and they didn't when Theresa May famously uttered the immortal piece of nonsense 'Brexit means Brexit', and they still don't.

@LouiseCollins28

After all that waffling on elections/democracy, etc, you seem to have managed to conveniently overlook the question of the £1 billion bung that bought the Tories a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP a few weeks after the election. Was that democracy in action?

If Leavers are happy with the likelihood that everything going to shit for generations in order to enact their heart's desire, why are they not happy with commentators saying that likely everything is going to shit for generations in order to enact their heart's desire?

Is this one of those "compelled speech" things?

[quote Clavinova]**@mathanxiety
I am wondering what is an acceptable death toll from covid for healthcare workers, in your opinion.

In view of yesterday's comments, I have to point out that your posts are sadly lacking in any compassion whatsoever towards the healthcare workers who have unfortunately died during the pandemic.

Perhaps regular posters on Westminstenders think BlackeyedSusan's comments don't apply to them;

"While it may or may not be factual...it lacked or appeared to lack any awareness that these are not just statistics, but real lives that have been ended too soon. People with families, colleagues, friends."

"Discuss statistics by all means, but don't forget the people behind them, nor the readers who may be directly affected."[/quote]
Nowhere in @mathanxiety’s post is there any indication she lacks compassion for healthcare workers.
I’ve noticed many times the tendency of visitors and bots to deploy ad hominem attacks, often accusing regular posters of hypocrisy and inhumanity, without justification. I thought Louise was above that - but sadly not.
As for the BBC it isn’t an opinion poll, nor should it reflect all the views of its audience, solely on the grounds of fairness or to eliminate any suspicion of bias from the easily angered or offended. It should report facts. (My perception is that it is totally biased towards Government, Brexit, wokeness, so I don’t listen to or watch it much. But that’s just my perception.)

Found you! thanks @RedToothBrush and all regs
PMK to read back ...

People are either democrats or they aren't.

This is akin to "Brexit means Brexit": equally simple and simplistic.
There is a world of difference between totalitarianism and a democracy in which not everything is utterly perfect. There is corruption and nepotism on a certain level in many western countries, but they are still more democratic than Saudi Arabia, China or Belorussia.

And just for starters:

There is nothing democratic about a gvmt that sits on a report showing that a foreign power, demonstrably accustomed to such behaviour, interfered in a vital referendum.

There is nothing democratic about a PM who unilaterally says he will refuse a second referendum in Scotland, when Scottish voters did not vote Leave and it was made clear before the referendum that it would not be "once in a generation" if the rUK voted to Leave the EU and drag an unwilling Scotland with them.

There is nothing democratic about FPTP.

There is nothing democratic about a national broadcaster that scrabbles around to find people ready to defend sth that no well-informed expert can defend, in the name of reflecting people's "views."

...

Oh! Profound apologies to @LouiseCollins28 who obviously doesn’t do ad hominem attacks. Sorry Louise I should have actually looked at the quote I was quoting. It was Clav of course.
My defence is that I was distracted because I could hear the cat throwing up on the landing and I hadn’t yet applied my HRT gel (which kickstarts my brain).

"Fuck you! We're doing the opposite of what you've voted for.

Isn't that what Johnson is doing right now? He got himself elected on getting brexit done with an 'Oven Ready Deal'. I hadn't realised that this meant 'No Deal'

If you buy something Oven Ready you take it out of the packet and bung it in the oven. I didn't realise that with a Johnson Oven Ready Deal you open the packet and find it's empty. Just full of hot air and wind. Why aren't you demanding your money back?

borntobequiet
Nowhere in mathanxiety’s post is there any indication she lacks compassion for healthcare workers.

My mistake, I was under the impression that she was using an ad hominem attack on me with this comment;

"I am wondering what is an acceptable death toll from covid for healthcare workers, in your opinion."

I’ve noticed many times the tendency of visitors and bots to deploy ad hominem attacks, often accusing regular posters of hypocrisy and inhumanity, without justification.

Have you? That surprises me - I thought I was being consistent with BlackeyedSusan's comments on my post from Saturday.

I posted;
"Germany does appear to collect similar data - 62 deaths in health/social care related occupations (23+39), although; "since information on occupation, accommodation or care in these facilities is missing in 25% of cases, the proportion of cases working, accommodated or cared for in these facilities reported here should be considered minimum values."^

"I assume you are attributing many of the hospitalisations in these occupations in Germany (1,125) to a lack of PPE, as per the UK? And the 25,000+ positive tests in health and social care occupations in Germany also due to a shortage of PPE?"

The replies I received;

"That post lacks compassion for those who died, their families friends and colleagues." and;

"While it may or may not be factual...it lacked or appeared to lack any awareness that these are not just statistics, but real lives that have been ended too soon. People with families, colleagues, friends."

"Discuss statistics by all means, but don't forget the people behind them, nor the readers who may be directly affected."

Do you think BlackeyedSusan was posting an ad hominem attack on me? And her comments are not relevant to regular posters?

To be fair to me, I did let this matter rest on Saturday - but apparently you want to keep calling me back to continue the discussion...

Peregrina people really don't care about historic mentions of "oven ready deals". Those who voted for Boris (more than for anyone else in number) were glad to get him into power so that the country could move forward. The Remain movement (post referendum) at its best had never looked able to achieve anything more than interminable stasis due to extremely poor leadership, and it was the stasis much more than the vote itself that caused the bafflement of other nations. Covid has required a different type of leadership and I think they have done much less well at that, but the initial breaking of stasis is achieved and that's a huge relief for people from both sides of the debate.

I confess, I don't see any "huge relief" myself.
I have genuine worries about the supply of medicines for family members - I would happily accept stasis in return for that.

Covid didn't require a 'different kind of leadership' - it required leadership, full stop, for which Johnson has dismally failed.

@TheElementsOfMedical

If Leavers are happy with the likelihood that everything going to shit for generations in order to enact their heart's desire, why are they not happy with commentators saying that likely everything is going to shit for generations in order to enact their heart's desire?

Is this one of those "compelled speech" things?

Indeed. Have the Tories ever Openly said to the working people of this nation - those currently staffing the care homes, the hospitals, the schools, the factories, the workshops - that they do not care about the possibility of melamine or other chemical adulterations added to baby milk, or sawdust added to flour? Or the complete abolition of any laws on break times or length of working days? “Because some can’t afford it”, rather than explaining, lest alone changing the appalling inequalities that result in the working population of the “sixth richest nation” on the planet being unable to afford basic health standards?

When have the Tories ever come clean and explained what “there is no society only individuals” actually meant? Or what the Victorian Age they’ve always banged on about was actually like for most of the people working to drive it? Not for the bloody pensioners, not for the lords in charge of the factories, but for the people deprived of the results of their never-ending labour?