Discussion:
How many more....
Add Reply
Mark, Devon
2020-06-21 18:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been 'known by the security services' under this disconnected Tory government, and disconnected PM?
Keema's Nan
2020-06-21 18:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been 'known
by the security services' under this disconnected Tory government, and
disconnected PM?
All of them, probably.
Joe
2020-06-21 19:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 11:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mark, Devon
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been
'known by the security services' under this disconnected Tory
government, and disconnected PM?
About the same as under Blair/Brown, of course. Why are you so tribal?

You must know that the people known to the security services will not
have been personally scrutinised by the PM, nor probably any minister.

Those who 'know' these people are part of the permanent government i.e.
they are unlikely to have been elected to anything. They are indeed, as
you imply, a large part of the problem. They are unaccountable, and
therefore have no incentive to be competent, as long as they obey
departmental rules.
--
Joe
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 06:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Those who 'know' these people are part of the permanent government i.e.
they are unlikely to have been elected to anything. They are indeed, as
you imply, a large part of the problem. They are unaccountable, and
therefore have no incentive to be competent, as long as they obey
departmental rules.>>
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently. BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 06:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently. BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.>>
This man had a massive criminal record. The Tory government and Mismanagement BonZo should hang their disgusting heads in shame, again.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-22 07:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently. BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.>>
This man had a massive criminal record. The Tory government and Mismanagement BonZo should hang their disgusting heads in shame, again.
So have you! Stop throwing stones in your greenhouse. He is the sovereign's first minister. That's what his title means.

He was elected to this position as per convention, thorough the democratic processes of the Tory party being the largest party currently sitting in the HoC. Should this position change for any reason then he would tender his resignation to the Queen.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 07:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
He was elected to this position as per convention, thorough the democratic processes of the Tory party being the largest party currently sitting in the HoC. Should this position change for any reason then he would tender his resignation to the Queen.>>
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 07:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.>>
PS...why did BonZo say only a couple of weeks ago that we'd have a world-beating Track and Trace system in place and working by now? Is he a liar, taken in by the other Tory liar Scummings?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-22 10:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.
And you haven't?

The Tory party won a large majority at the last election with Boris in place. All those people were wrong but you were right?

Just like the court you stood before. You were right. They were wrong!

It made very little difference to your fate!
MM
2020-06-22 10:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?

a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?

b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?

I happen to recall it was (b).

That's not very democratic, is it? The PM can take this country to war
and do all kinds of other significant things, like completely ballsing
up the handling of the pandemic, so why was the British electorate not
asked for their view at the ballot box when the position became vacant
after Theresa May resigned?

That would have been a more democratic process, wouldn't it?

MM
Joe
2020-06-22 10:31:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:21:59 +0100
Post by MM
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very
very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one
who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?
a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?
b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?
I happen to recall it was (b).
That's not very democratic, is it? The PM can take this country to war
and do all kinds of other significant things, like completely ballsing
up the handling of the pandemic, so why was the British electorate not
asked for their view at the ballot box when the position became vacant
after Theresa May resigned?
That would have been a more democratic process, wouldn't it?
Like when Brown took over from Blair, do you mean?

I can't remember when any PM resigned during his elected term and
any kind of election or consultation was held over his/her replacement.

Quite simply, a political party chooses its leader, not the public.
--
Joe
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 10:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
BonZo loves to continue to make appearances only when there's 'good' news to announce, rather than on trickier days when he could be challenged.....next appearance tomorrow. Lol.
abelard
2020-06-22 12:36:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
BonZo loves to continue to make appearances only when there's 'good' news to announce, rather than on trickier days when he could be challenged.....next appearance tomorrow. Lol.
he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles

he is responsible to the tory party...not to idiots like you...
and that responsibility is to win the next election...and
the one after that
the socialist vote is eroding year by year as people become
better educated...

bliar has stepped down
the clown has stepped down
milipede has stepped down
agent cob has stepped down

when is the stammerer going to step down?
--
www.abelard.org
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 14:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles))

And when he acts irresponsibly, he is accountable to us.
abelard
2020-06-22 15:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
((he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles))
And when he acts irresponsibly, he is accountable to us.
the last thing he will ever consider, is to be answerable to idiots

meanwhile you forgot to answer the question

bliar has stepped down
the clown has stepped down
milipede has stepped down
agent cob has stepped down

when is the stammerer going to step down?
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-06-22 17:21:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
BonZo loves to continue to make appearances only when there's 'good' news
to announce, rather than on trickier days when he could be
challenged.....next appearance tomorrow. Lol.
he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles
he is responsible to the tory party...not to idiots like you...
and that responsibility is to win the next election...and
the one after that
the socialist vote is eroding year by year as people become
better educated...
That’s an interesting theory of yours.

That the socialist vote moves as a function of the educational standard of
the electorate.

However, given that the Tories were in power between 1979 and 1997 but then
lost to a Labour landslide; the lack of education under the Tory
administration over those 18 years must have been dire for so many millions
to suddenly become uneducated.

I think you will have to try harder.
Post by abelard
bliar has stepped down
the clown has stepped down
milipede has stepped down
agent cob has stepped down
when is the stammerer going to step down?
When his support gets so high that the security services panic, and have to
cook up a smear campaign as they do with all Labour leaders in the run up to
an election.
abelard
2020-06-22 17:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:21:28 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
BonZo loves to continue to make appearances only when there's 'good' news
to announce, rather than on trickier days when he could be
challenged.....next appearance tomorrow. Lol.
he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles
he is responsible to the tory party...not to idiots like you...
and that responsibility is to win the next election...and
the one after that
the socialist vote is eroding year by year as people become
better educated...
That’s an interesting theory of yours.
That the socialist vote moves as a function of the educational standard of
the electorate.
However, given that the Tories were in power between 1979 and 1997 but then
lost to a Labour landslide; the lack of education under the Tory
administration over those 18 years must have been dire for so many millions
to suddenly become uneducated.
I think you will have to try harder.
you can fool all of the people some of the time...
you can fool all of the people some of the time

but you can't fool all of the people some of the time

most people are fairly truthful
most people project....thus they tend to believe
others are like themselves

many people only learn(if at all) from experience...
it usually takes about 15 or 20 years for a new
generation, ignorant of the real nature of socialism...
they grow up in ignorance of the reality of the cult

thus in general, labour get in again every 15 year or so....
and lasts just one election cycle before being removed
for another decade or two
as another lot catch on to the religion

the reason bliar lasted, was the tory party was invaded
by a bunch of socialist-lite idiots....
read up on the 'cambridge mafia'
Post by abelard
bliar has stepped down
the clown has stepped down
milipede has stepped down
agent cob has stepped down
when is the stammerer going to step down?
When his support gets so high that the security services panic, and have to
cook up a smear campaign as they do with all Labour leaders in the run up to
an election.
no need...boris already has his number...stammerer is a lawyer
who will sell any brief for money
ie, whatever brief he is paid to sell
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-06-23 06:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:21:28 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
BonZo loves to continue to make appearances only when there's 'good' news
to announce, rather than on trickier days when he could be
challenged.....next appearance tomorrow. Lol.
he is responsible to the country, not to the reptiles
he is responsible to the tory party...not to idiots like you...
and that responsibility is to win the next election...and
the one after that
the socialist vote is eroding year by year as people become
better educated...
That’s an interesting theory of yours.
That the socialist vote moves as a function of the educational standard of
the electorate.
However, given that the Tories were in power between 1979 and 1997 but then
lost to a Labour landslide; the lack of education under the Tory
administration over those 18 years must have been dire for so many millions
to suddenly become uneducated.
I think you will have to try harder.
you can fool all of the people some of the time...
you can fool all of the people some of the time
but you can't fool all of the people some of the time
You can't even get that right, you idiot.

It is:

'You can fool some of the people all of the time

You can fool all of the people some of the time

But you can't fool all of the people all of the time'.


The only person you've ever managed to fool is yourself. Somehow you've
managed to fool yourself that you've got more than half-a-brain.
MM
2020-06-22 12:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:21:59 +0100
Post by MM
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very
very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one
who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?
a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?
b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?
I happen to recall it was (b).
That's not very democratic, is it? The PM can take this country to war
and do all kinds of other significant things, like completely ballsing
up the handling of the pandemic, so why was the British electorate not
asked for their view at the ballot box when the position became vacant
after Theresa May resigned?
That would have been a more democratic process, wouldn't it?
Like when Brown took over from Blair, do you mean?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Post by Joe
I can't remember when any PM resigned during his elected term and
any kind of election or consultation was held over his/her replacement.
That's because Britain is the most undemocratic country in Europe.
Post by Joe
Quite simply, a political party chooses its leader, not the public.
Choosing a leader is okay, but not when the new leader automatically
becomes Prime Minister.

In modern Germany, for example, the German chancellor is elected by
the federal parliament (Bundestag), which is considerably more
democratic than the way we do it.

MM
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-06-22 13:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Joe
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:21:59 +0100
Post by MM
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very
very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one
who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?
a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?
b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?
I happen to recall it was (b).
That's not very democratic, is it? The PM can take this country to war
and do all kinds of other significant things, like completely ballsing
up the handling of the pandemic, so why was the British electorate not
asked for their view at the ballot box when the position became vacant
after Theresa May resigned?
That would have been a more democratic process, wouldn't it?
Like when Brown took over from Blair, do you mean?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two blacks don't make a white.
Post by MM
Post by Joe
I can't remember when any PM resigned during his elected term and
any kind of election or consultation was held over his/her replacement.
That's because Britain is the most undemocratic country in Europe.
Far from it. It's the *most* democratic country in Europe. It holds
referendums and *honours* the results!
Post by MM
Post by Joe
Quite simply, a political party chooses its leader, not the public.
Choosing a leader is okay, but not when the new leader automatically
becomes Prime Minister.
That's OK too.
Post by MM
In modern Germany, for example, the German chancellor is elected by
the federal parliament (Bundestag), which is considerably more
democratic than the way we do it.
Move back to the Reich, then. And wait for the next dictatorship.
NoSpamAtAll
2020-06-22 14:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Two blacks don't make a white.
A million sub-lice like you don't make a louse.
Ariel Sharon a"h zt"l
2020-06-22 18:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:04:21 +0000 (UTC), GOING APESHIT in SHPITE of
RECENT jew shabbosh shodomy NoSpamAtAll aka GOOGLEFUCKED jew
paedophile SHCUMBAG/PARASHITE Barry Z. Shein
<***@shell02.TheWorld.com> hat geshrivn:

<fluhs jew shmut/shpam/liesh/shite EXCRETED from STD.COM>

SHEENIE SHPAM...SHEENIE SHEIN! GEDDIT?

Butt regardlessh, never mind all that jew shite jew VOIMIN
Shein....better you shoukd SHEND a dollar a day (jusht 4 shekelsh) to
jew shubcommunity vatch sho that they can CONTINUE their good VOIK
exposhing jew PAEDOPHILESH in varioush jew ARCHDIOCESHESH....including
YOUR jew ARCHDIOCESHE of B'righton and B'rookline (Mass)!

You have been EXPOSHED jew paedophile VOIMIN Barry Z. Shein!

There is NO ESHCAPE for you, jew SHCUM!!

EXCEPT if you do an aliyah to 'Israeel' and become an OLLY!

BOS---------------------------------------------------------------TLV

NONSHTOP and G-DSHPEED, a"h!

TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHK!

BUTT REGARDLESSH...let'sh CONTINUE with the MERCILESSH and
RELENTLESSH GOOGLEFUCKING of:
Your shleazy shlimy circumcished jew paedophile shyshadmin (ALSHO
called Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Your, circumcished jew shishter Suzan F. Binder and her
circumcished jew hubby Marc W. Binder
Your, circumcished shitshke 'wife' Mary E. Riendeau Shein
Your, shenile circumcished jew mum Annie Shein (SHOOSH!)
Your, circumcished jew shub-uncle Hyman Shein (POP!)
Your, circumcished jew dad Shaul (LOLOK) Shein (zt"l/a"h since 1992)
and LASHT butt not LEASHT your, shubcherry-popped circumcished jew
shubnephew Zachary G. Binder!

Let the jewshaming© continue!

BREAKING NEWS! HARVEY VEENSHTEEN is a g-ddam *jew*!!!

BLACK LIES MATTER; jew LIES DON'T!
Peeler
2020-06-22 18:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:16:30 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Ariel Sharon a\"h zt\"l",
Post by Ariel Sharon a"h zt"l
<fluhs jew shmut/shpam/liesh/shite EXCRETED from STD.COM>
Fluhsing [sic] your OWN shit finally, "Ariel Sharon a\"h zt\"l", you
clinically insane, endlessly nym-shifting dreckserb? Why did it take you
THAT long to become house-trained?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
NoSpamAtAll
2020-06-22 14:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Two blacks don't make a white.
A million sub-lice like you don't make a louse.
binzi kramer
2020-06-22 18:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:04:49 +0000 (UTC), GOING APESHIT in SHPITE of
RECENT jew shabbosh shodomy NoSpamAtAll aka GOOGLEFUCKED jew
paedophile SHCUMBAG/PARASHITE Barry Z. Shein
<***@shell02.TheWorld.com> hat geshrivn:

<fluhs jew shmut/shpam/liesh/shite EXCRETED from STD.COM>

SHEENIE SHPAM...SHEENIE SHEIN! GEDDIT?

Butt regardlessh, never mind all that jew shite jew VOIMIN
Shein....better you shoukd SHEND a dollar a day (jusht 4 shekelsh) to
jew shubcommunity vatch sho that they can CONTINUE their good VOIK
exposhing jew PAEDOPHILESH in varioush jew ARCHDIOCESHESH....including
YOUR jew ARCHDIOCESHE of B'righton and B'rookline (Mass)!

You have been EXPOSHED jew paedophile VOIMIN Barry Z. Shein!

There is NO ESHCAPE for you, jew SHCUM!!

EXCEPT if you do an aliyah to 'Israeel' and become an OLLY!

BOS---------------------------------------------------------------TLV

NONSHTOP and G-DSHPEED, a"h!

TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHK!

BUTT REGARDLESSH...let'sh CONTINUE with the MERCILESSH and
RELENTLESSH GOOGLEFUCKING of:
Your shleazy shlimy circumcished jew paedophile shyshadmin (ALSHO
called Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Your, circumcished jew shishter Suzan F. Binder and her
circumcished jew hubby Marc W. Binder
Your, circumcished shitshke 'wife' Mary E. Riendeau Shein
Your, shenile circumcished jew mum Annie Shein (SHOOSH!)
Your, circumcished jew shub-uncle Hyman Shein (POP!)
Your, circumcished jew dad Shaul (LOLOK) Shein (zt"l/a"h since 1992)
and LASHT butt not LEASHT your, shubcherry-popped circumcished jew
shubnephew Zachary G. Binder!

Let the jewshaming© continue!

BREAKING NEWS! HARVEY VEENSHTEEN is a g-ddam *jew*!!!

BLACK LIES MATTER; jew LIES DON'T!
Peeler
2020-06-22 18:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:18:48 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Ariel Sharon a"h zt"l
<fluhs jew shmut/shpam/liesh/shite EXCRETED from STD.COM>
Fluhsing [sic] your OWN shit finally, "binzi kramer", you clinically insane,
endlessly nym-shifting dreckserb? Why did it take you THAT long to become
house-trained? Was it because of your KNOWN love of shit in all its forms,
pedophilic gay bastard?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any "meaningful" debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Joe
2020-06-22 19:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:51:43 -0700
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Far from it. It's the *most* democratic country in Europe. It holds
referendums and *honours* the results!
That's a low blow, you're hitting them with facts. Hasn't been allowed
for years.
--
Joe
Mark Devon
2020-06-22 19:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((That's a low blow, you're hitting them with facts. Hasn't been allowed
for years.))

Talking of facts, what about Scummings?
Joe
2020-06-22 20:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mark Devon
((That's a low blow, you're hitting them with facts. Hasn't been
allowed for years.))
Talking of facts, what about Scummings?
What point are you trying to make about his connection with the EU
Constitution referendums? I don't recall his name from those days.
--
Joe
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 20:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Mark Devon
Talking of facts, what about Scummings?
What point are you trying to make about his connection with the EU
Constitution referendums? I don't recall his name from those days.>>
I think it's well known that Scummings was behind the deceptive and misleading £350m/week battle bus slogan.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-06-23 12:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:51:43 -0700
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Far from it. It's the *most* democratic country in Europe. It holds
referendums and *honours* the results!
That's a low blow, you're hitting them with facts. Hasn't been allowed
for years.
One has to wonder...why doesn't he go back to his blessed German
Reich?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-22 11:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?
a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?
No but we had an election to endorse that.

It has always been the case that the prime minister is the leader of the largest party in the HoC. That is because of the requirement that the PM should command the support of the majority of the HoC

You have recently seen what chaos rules when the difference in representation becomes marginal.

Personally I would prefer that the largest party be given limited powers of co option into the house.
Post by MM
b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?
but the election that followed soon thereafter proved that the Tory party had the highest level of support

There can be no alternative to these systems so long as the requirements that government should be selected from the party with the highest level of representation in parliament and that at the same time, government should be accountable to that very same parliament.
Post by MM
I happen to recall it was (b).
That's not very democratic, is it? The PM can take this country to war
and do all kinds of other significant things, like completely ballsing
up the handling of the pandemic, so why was the British electorate not
asked for their view at the ballot box when the position became vacant
after Theresa May resigned?
That would have been a more democratic process, wouldn't it?
MM
MM
2020-06-22 12:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets Scummings run the show.
...with Boris in place.
Care to remind us how Boris Johnson became leader of the Tory party
and thus de facto PM?
a) Was it, for instance, by a majority of the British electorate?
No but we had an election to endorse that.
How can an undemocratic vote be "endorsed"?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It has always been the case that the prime minister is the leader of the largest party in the HoC. That is because of the requirement that the PM should command the support of the majority of the HoC
Ah, so if a future Tory membership only amounted to, say, a thousand
members you'd be happy for a majority of one thousand to elect the
Prime Minister?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You have recently seen what chaos rules when the difference in representation becomes marginal.
???
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Personally I would prefer that the largest party be given limited powers of co option into the house.
???
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
b) Or just by a majority of Tory party members?
but the election that followed soon thereafter proved that the Tory party had the highest level of support
Sure, the *election* did. But why not elect the Prime Minister
democratically in the first place? Germany does.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There can be no alternative to these systems so long as the requirements that government should be selected from the party with the highest level of representation in parliament and that at the same time, government should be accountable to that very same parliament.
Well, Germany manages to elect the Chancellor democratically, by the
Bundestag, which represents *all* the people, not just those signed up
to the CDU.

MM
Andy Walker
2020-06-22 14:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Well, Germany manages to elect the Chancellor democratically, by the
Bundestag, which represents *all* the people, not just those signed up
to the CDU.
That seems a very strange argument. If you accept election by
the Bundestag as democratic, then surely election by the HoC would be
just as democratic? The only reason we don't bother to elect our PM
in the HoC is that any PM who does not command an absolute majority
there will be deposed by a vote of no confidence; that is why there
is commonly a pause before a minority or coalition government takes
office, as the prospective PM needs to be sure of enough HoC votes.
Anyone who thinks they can get the support of more MPs than Mr Johnson
is welcome to try; at the moment, they would surely fail.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
MM
2020-06-22 17:43:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
Well, Germany manages to elect the Chancellor democratically, by the
Bundestag, which represents *all* the people, not just those signed up
to the CDU.
That seems a very strange argument. If you accept election by
the Bundestag as democratic, then surely election by the HoC would be
just as democratic?
But our PM is NOT elected by the HoC, but by the Tory party. That's
how he or she initially becomes leader.
Post by Andy Walker
The only reason we don't bother to elect our PM
in the HoC is that any PM who does not command an absolute majority
there will be deposed by a vote of no confidence;
And that's a bad thing?
Post by Andy Walker
that is why there
is commonly a pause before a minority or coalition government takes
office, as the prospective PM needs to be sure of enough HoC votes.
Anyone who thinks they can get the support of more MPs than Mr Johnson
is welcome to try; at the moment, they would surely fail.
I wouldn't be so sure about surely, actually. A lot of Tory MPs think
Boris Johnson is not fit for purpose and not just because of his
corona virus episode.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-tory-government-christmas-cabinet-brexit-coronavirus-trade-a9520076.html

Extract:
"So that question pretty much answers itself. I suppose what I really
mean is that it’s just begun to dawn on me that he isn’t actually very
good at the job. The posh accent and the classical references disguise
it a bit, but the truth is starting to show through. He’s just not up
to it."

MM
Andy Walker
2020-06-22 18:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
Well, Germany manages to elect the Chancellor democratically, by the
Bundestag, which represents *all* the people, not just those signed up
to the CDU.
That seems a very strange argument. If you accept election by
the Bundestag as democratic, then surely election by the HoC would be
just as democratic?
But our PM is NOT elected by the HoC, but by the Tory party. That's
how he or she initially becomes leader.
I'll take that as a "yes", then. How do you expect anyone to
become leader of any party other than by being elected by that party?
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
The only reason we don't bother to elect our PM
in the HoC is that any PM who does not command an absolute majority
there will be deposed by a vote of no confidence;
And that's a bad thing?
No, of course not. But it means that the German process is not
interestingly different from that here. The Chancellor/PM needs a
majority in the Bundestag/HoC. Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.

[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Anyone who thinks they can get the support of more MPs than Mr Johnson
is welcome to try; at the moment, they would surely fail.
I wouldn't be so sure about surely, actually. A lot of Tory MPs think
Boris Johnson is not fit for purpose and not just because of his
corona virus episode.
They need to think more than that; they need to think that
someone else is more fit, and to persuade the HoC likewise. Good luck
with that, given the most likely alternatives. But it's up to MPs;
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
MM
2020-06-23 12:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
Well, Germany manages to elect the Chancellor democratically, by the
Bundestag, which represents *all* the people, not just those signed up
to the CDU.
That seems a very strange argument. If you accept election by
the Bundestag as democratic, then surely election by the HoC would be
just as democratic?
But our PM is NOT elected by the HoC, but by the Tory party. That's
how he or she initially becomes leader.
I'll take that as a "yes", then. How do you expect anyone to
become leader of any party other than by being elected by that party?
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*. It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Post by Andy Walker
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?

"On 16 May 2019, Johnson announced his plans to run for prime minister
and Leader of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election.[7] He
successfully got through the first round of voting with 114
Conservative MPs voting for him.[54] He later won all future ballots
by large numbers eventually become the top final two candidate with
Jeremy Hunt second on 20 June.

The members' vote closed on 22 July, with the result announced on 23
July. Johnson was elected leader with 92,153 votes (66.4%) to Hunt's
46,656 votes (33.6%).[55] He formally succeeded Theresa May as Prime
Minister on 24 July after a meeting with the Queen."

So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
The only reason we don't bother to elect our PM
in the HoC is that any PM who does not command an absolute majority
there will be deposed by a vote of no confidence;
And that's a bad thing?
No, of course not. But it means that the German process is not
interestingly different from that here. The Chancellor/PM needs a
majority in the Bundestag/HoC. Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Anyone who thinks they can get the support of more MPs than Mr Johnson
is welcome to try; at the moment, they would surely fail.
I wouldn't be so sure about surely, actually. A lot of Tory MPs think
Boris Johnson is not fit for purpose and not just because of his
corona virus episode.
They need to think more than that; they need to think that
someone else is more fit, and to persuade the HoC likewise. Good luck
with that, given the most likely alternatives. But it's up to MPs;
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!

MM
Joe
2020-06-23 13:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59:43 +0100
Post by MM
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Gove the (unsuccessful) back-stabber, do you mean?
--
Joe
Mark, Devon
2020-06-23 14:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((Gove the (unsuccessful) back-stabber, do you mean?))

Lol.....BonZo certainly was a backstabber to May. Looks like Muggsy and Scummings may be going for the parliamentary harassment body now.
MM
2020-06-26 10:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59:43 +0100
Post by MM
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Gove the (unsuccessful) back-stabber, do you mean?
Well, he's on his way in and Boris is on his way out, so I don't quite
see what your problem is.

MM
Andy Walker
2020-06-23 14:26:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen. I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system. Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs. You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE; if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.

[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
Post by Andy Walker
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.

[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-24 10:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This thread, which I started, has been an interesting one. I think I've made my position very clear.
Ophelia
2020-06-24 14:53:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen. I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system. Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs. You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE; if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.

[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
Post by Andy Walker
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.

[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.


Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

===

Thank you :)
MM
2020-06-26 11:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
Post by Andy Walker
I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. Note this extract from

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/what-extent-is-the-british-prime-minister-different-from-the-german-chancellor-public-law-essay.php

"Every four years, after national elections and the placing of the new
elected Bundestag components, the Bundespräsident (literally, the
'Federal President') suggests a Chancellor candidate to that
parliamentary group. The Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag,
represents its majority, and can rely on its support for how it
concern government’s legislative proposals."

Also, note the words "after national elections".

The difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
Post by Andy Walker
Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say. Only months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held. And only after that
happened with a majority for the Tories could one say that Boris
Johnson was legitimately and democratically elected as Prime Minister.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs.
Maybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ. I don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
Post by Andy Walker
You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.

From Brown's page on Wikipedia:

"There was speculation during September and early October 2007 about
whether Brown would call a snap general election. Indeed, the party
launched the Not Flash, Just Gordon advertising campaign, which was
seen largely as pre-election promotion of Brown as Prime Minister.
However, Brown announced on 6 October that there would be no election
any time soon..."

"...no election any time soon...

I rest my case m'lud.
Post by Andy Walker
if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
Post by Andy Walker
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
Post by Andy Walker
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.

Not in my book. Our system stinks.
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.
The phrase "keeping one's powder dry" usually means that one has
functioning weapons later to defeat the enemy.

MM
Keema's Nan
2020-06-26 11:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. Note this extract from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/what-extent-is-the-briti
sh-prime-minister-different-from-the-german-chancellor-public-law-essay.php
"Every four years, after national elections and the placing of the new
elected Bundestag components, the Bundespräsident (literally, the
'Federal President') suggests a Chancellor candidate to that
parliamentary group. The Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag,
represents its majority, and can rely on its support for how it
concern government’s legislative proposals."
Also, note the words "after national elections".
The difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say. Only months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held. And only after that
happened with a majority for the Tories could one say that Boris
Johnson was legitimately and democratically elected as Prime Minister.
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs.
Maybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ. I don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.
"There was speculation during September and early October 2007 about
whether Brown would call a snap general election. Indeed, the party
launched the Not Flash, Just Gordon advertising campaign, which was
seen largely as pre-election promotion of Brown as Prime Minister.
However, Brown announced on 6 October that there would be no election
any time soon..."
"...no election any time soon...
I rest my case m'lud.
if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.
Not in my book. Our system stinks.
[...]
Post by MM
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.
The phrase "keeping one's powder dry" usually means that one has
functioning weapons later to defeat the enemy.
MM
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.

PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.

Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-26 12:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by MM
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. Note this extract from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/what-extent-is-the-briti
sh-prime-minister-different-from-the-german-chancellor-public-law-essay.php
"Every four years, after national elections and the placing of the new
elected Bundestag components, the Bundespräsident (literally, the
'Federal President') suggests a Chancellor candidate to that
parliamentary group. The Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag,
represents its majority, and can rely on its support for how it
concern government’s legislative proposals."
Also, note the words "after national elections".
The difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say. Only months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held. And only after that
happened with a majority for the Tories could one say that Boris
Johnson was legitimately and democratically elected as Prime Minister.
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs.
Maybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ. I don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.
"There was speculation during September and early October 2007 about
whether Brown would call a snap general election. Indeed, the party
launched the Not Flash, Just Gordon advertising campaign, which was
seen largely as pre-election promotion of Brown as Prime Minister.
However, Brown announced on 6 October that there would be no election
any time soon..."
"...no election any time soon...
I rest my case m'lud.
if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.
Not in my book. Our system stinks.
[...]
Post by MM
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.
The phrase "keeping one's powder dry" usually means that one has
functioning weapons later to defeat the enemy.
MM
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-26 12:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by MM
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. Note this extract from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/what-extent-is-the-br
iti
sh-prime-minister-different-from-the-german-chancellor-public-law-essay.php
"Every four years, after national elections and the placing of the new
elected Bundestag components, the Bundespräsident (literally, the
'Federal President') suggests a Chancellor candidate to that
parliamentary group. The Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag,
represents its majority, and can rely on its support for how it
concern government’s legislative proposals."
Also, note the words "after national elections".
The difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say. Only months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held. And only after that
happened with a majority for the Tories could one say that Boris
Johnson was legitimately and democratically elected as Prime Minister.
Post by MM
It just so happened in
the last case that a general election followed quite quickly, but it
needn't have. There's nothing, no rule, that says the new leader is
merely a "caretaker" leader *until* a general election is held. But
this is not the way we do things. Once elected, i.e. chosen, by the
party membership the new PM has all the powers of ~any~ PM. This is
profoundly undemocratic, to give a new PM all that power from a
160,000 Tory party membership.
Well, yes; the PM exercises all the powers of a PM. We don't
have second-class PMs.
Maybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ. I don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.
"There was speculation during September and early October 2007 about
whether Brown would call a snap general election. Indeed, the party
launched the Not Flash, Just Gordon advertising campaign, which was
seen largely as pre-election promotion of Brown as Prime Minister.
However, Brown announced on 6 October that there would be no election
any time soon..."
"...no election any time soon...
I rest my case m'lud.
if some national emergency had arisen in
that period, he, rather than Mr Cameron, would have been responsible
for dealing with it. But he then found, as Mr Johnson could have found,
that he was unable to form a government; he could, in principle, have
carried on and formed a minority government, but he would very quickly
have been ousted by a vote of NC. Mr Cameron was the next candidate
for PM. He too could have formed a minority government and defied the
HoC to vote him down; whether they would or not, and what might have
happened had they done so, we'll never know. As it was, he was able
to form a majority government in coalition with the LibDems; again, I
don't see any relevant way in which this differs from Dr Merkel having
to secure a majority in the Bundestag, usually by forming a coalition
with the FDP.
Post by MM
But that's only one stage; to become PM requires more.
Nonsense. did the PM not go to the Queen and she asked him to form a
government?
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
[...]
Post by MM
So, your comment "But that's only one stage; to become PM requires
more." is plainly nonsense.
[...] Being, in our case, leader of the
Conservative party is a good first step to becoming PM, but it is
not enough, esp if no party has an absolute majority.
Yes, it is! I just showed you how it happened on 23/24 July 2019.
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.
Not in my book. Our system stinks.
[...]
Post by MM
I know who I would back to win a vote of NC at the moment, whatever
his perceived or actual shortcomings.
It'll likely be Gove. He's really keeping his powder dry at the
moment, isn't he!
Mr Gove will get a chance only if Mr Johnson goes. I did say
"at the moment", not "if Mr Johnson falls under a bus". But if Mr
Johnson does go, I'd suggest that "keeping his powder dry" is not the
most important consideration for the next PM.
The phrase "keeping one's powder dry" usually means that one has
functioning weapons later to defeat the enemy.
MM
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-26 14:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The chances of joined-up government and a cohesive approach to tackling terrorism are very slim with a lazy and disconnected PM like BonZo, and an irresponsible advisor like Scummings.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-28 15:17:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Robert Jenrick....yet another Tory scumbag that BonZo defends.
JNugent
2020-06-28 16:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Mark, Devon
2020-06-28 16:37:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((Crisis? What crisis?". ))

BonZo has his lot have shown their inabilities during this pandemic. Scummings, and BonZo's inability to fire him..... laughable if it wasn't so serious. Tory MPs who stick with Johnson will become a laughing stock.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 16:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
((Crisis? What crisis?". ))
BonZo has his lot have shown their inabilities during this pandemic.
Scummings, and BonZo's inability to fire him..... laughable if it wasn't so
serious. Tory MPs who stick with Johnson will become a laughing stock.
As usual with everything posted by Nugent, it is wrong.

Crisis? What Crisis? Was a 1979 newspaper headline from when Callaghan
returned from some poncy leaders’ conference in the Caribbean.

That was sometime in January.

The subject we were discussing was the September 1978 refusal to call a
general election. But never mind, Nuge will find some minuscule bit of typo
pedantry for him to claim outright victory.
JNugent
2020-06-29 00:28:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
((Crisis? What crisis?". ))
BonZo has his lot have shown their inabilities during this pandemic. Scummings, and BonZo's inability to fire him..... laughable if it wasn't so serious. Tory MPs who stick with Johnson will become a laughing stock.
WHHHOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 16:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.

Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 17:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he
retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?

She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.

Works every time.

I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?

Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.

In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the battle is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.

No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-28 18:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Top civil servant to quit. Scummings to remain.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 18:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Top civil servant to quit. Scummings to remain.
Cummings has probably ordered him to quit, because he was too awkward and
wouldn't lick the Cummings rectum every few minutes.

Unless someone stands up to our unelected and unaccountable President, this
purge will continue.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 18:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
They don't need a war this time when they've got the coronavirus - it's
doing everything for them that wars normally do. In fact it's even better.

Apart from putting us further into the hands of the money creators and
lenders, which is what they normally need wars for, they are able to
enact the sort of controlling legislation that they can only dream of in
normal times. However, unlike wars - which normally kill off great
swathes of the younger generation - this convenient little plandemic is
killing off great swathes of the older generation. And all this is being
done without having to destroy enormous quantities of ever scarcer
resources.

Yep, looks like they've found an alternative to the usual
conflagrations. It's amazing what you can do when you control all the
media and all the politicians.
Post by Keema's Nan
Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.
In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the battle is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.
No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
I don't think 'they' really care who the plantation overseer is. You can
be sure that whoever wins the elections the same people will always be
in charge.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 18:26:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years
without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he
retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
They don't need a war this time when they've got the coronavirus - it's
doing everything for them that wars normally do. In fact it's even better.
Apart from putting us further into the hands of the money creators and
lenders, which is what they normally need wars for, they are able to
enact the sort of controlling legislation that they can only dream of in
normal times. However, unlike wars - which normally kill off great
swathes of the younger generation - this convenient little plandemic is
killing off great swathes of the older generation. And all this is being
done without having to destroy enormous quantities of ever scarcer
resources.
Yep, looks like they've found an alternative to the usual
conflagrations. It's amazing what you can do when you control all the
media and all the politicians.
Yes agreed, but many of the billionaires get their profits from selling
military hardware, and will be needing new yachts and islands to sail them
around soon.

I think some form of military conflict must be on the cards, and maybe Israel
annexing the West Bank illegally on Wednesday will do it.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.
In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the battle is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.
No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
I don't think 'they' really care who the plantation overseer is. You can
be sure that whoever wins the elections the same people will always be
in charge.
Oh yes, but I think weakling Boris is a danger because he is allowing someone
who has not been chosen, to gain a lot of power.

They may feel that a caretaker PM is necessary until Starmer can be
installed.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 18:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in 1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
They don't need a war this time when they've got the coronavirus - it's
doing everything for them that wars normally do. In fact it's even better.
Apart from putting us further into the hands of the money creators and
lenders, which is what they normally need wars for, they are able to
enact the sort of controlling legislation that they can only dream of in
normal times. However, unlike wars - which normally kill off great
swathes of the younger generation - this convenient little plandemic is
killing off great swathes of the older generation. And all this is being
done without having to destroy enormous quantities of ever scarcer
resources.
Yep, looks like they've found an alternative to the usual
conflagrations. It's amazing what you can do when you control all the
media and all the politicians.
Yes agreed, but many of the billionaires get their profits from selling
military hardware, and will be needing new yachts and islands to sail them
around soon.
They usually get their money from creating it out of fresh - and, as
with wars, that activity will be (has been) stepped up. There's also the
business of selling vaccines (and they'll invent one of those soon no
doubt). I see that Bill Gates is leading the charge on that one.
Post by Keema's Nan
I think some form of military conflict must be on the cards, and maybe Israel
annexing the West Bank illegally on Wednesday will do it.
The evil activities there will continue whatever happens elsewhere.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.
In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the battle is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.
No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
I don't think 'they' really care who the plantation overseer is. You can
be sure that whoever wins the elections the same people will always be
in charge.
Oh yes, but I think weakling Boris is a danger because he is allowing someone
who has not been chosen, to gain a lot of power.
They may feel that a caretaker PM is necessary until Starmer can be
installed.
No, those in charge will always be in charge - unless, in the unlikely
event, the sheeple wake up. If Cummings has 'power' it is only because
the controllers want him to think he has.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 21:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years
without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he
retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
They don't need a war this time when they've got the coronavirus - it's
doing everything for them that wars normally do. In fact it's even better.
Apart from putting us further into the hands of the money creators and
lenders, which is what they normally need wars for, they are able to
enact the sort of controlling legislation that they can only dream of in
normal times. However, unlike wars - which normally kill off great
swathes of the younger generation - this convenient little plandemic is
killing off great swathes of the older generation. And all this is being
done without having to destroy enormous quantities of ever scarcer
resources.
Yep, looks like they've found an alternative to the usual
conflagrations. It's amazing what you can do when you control all the
media and all the politicians.
Yes agreed, but many of the billionaires get their profits from selling
military hardware, and will be needing new yachts and islands to sail them
around soon.
They usually get their money from creating it out of fresh - and, as
with wars, that activity will be (has been) stepped up. There's also the
business of selling vaccines (and they'll invent one of those soon no
doubt). I see that Bill Gates is leading the charge on that one.
Oops, make that 'fresh air'.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
I think some form of military conflict must be on the cards, and maybe Israel
annexing the West Bank illegally on Wednesday will do it.
The evil activities there will continue whatever happens elsewhere.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.
In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the
battle
is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.
No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
I don't think 'they' really care who the plantation overseer is. You can
be sure that whoever wins the elections the same people will always be
in charge.
Oh yes, but I think weakling Boris is a danger because he is allowing someone
who has not been chosen, to gain a lot of power.
They may feel that a caretaker PM is necessary until Starmer can be
installed.
No, those in charge will always be in charge - unless, in the unlikely
event, the sheeple wake up. If Cummings has 'power' it is only because
the controllers want him to think he has.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-29 09:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
It's time you revised your modern history

She sent a task force to the South Atlantic in resonse to an Argentinian invasion of British territory. What else would you expect any British Government to do?

The operation was a risk which could have gone either way. As it was thanks to the sinking of the Belgrano the Argentinian that sent the Argentinian Navy surring back to its ports denying it use of the seas around the Islands rendering reinforcement and supply of the lagely conscript Argentinean occupation force impossible. They were caught like rats in a trap.

Further the confinement of the Argentinean Navy to its home ports restricted the use of the Skyhawk aircraft, the only viable fighting force that they really had due to limitations in the range of the aircraft and the absence of flight refueling facilities.

The result is that the British flag still flies over Port Stanley The British there are more british than we are. They hate the Argies for at least a generation, are self governing and can have their independence for the asking but don't want it. They are prosperous and safe.
Post by Keema's Nan
Boris will probably have now realised that head boy Starmer is being groomed
to be the next long term PM, in the establishment's effort to persuade the
country (as with Blair) that an ultra right wing smoothy is really lefty
Labour and that we do have a functioning democracy where the political left
and right still battle it out for HoC seats.
Starmer is still a long way from becoming P.M. but has taken a step in the right direction in getting rid of the Long Bailey bitch. There are others where she came from. His biggest challenge will be in the Town halls where there are many Militant a.k.a Momentum dinosaurs still ensconced. These will need to be prised out!

He is also very short on policy. He can't go on paying lip service to the Tories whilst at the same time criticizing them. Sooner or later even his own supporters will be calling for more clear water between the two parties. There is little to be seen at present. However, there is till time for that.

He must fear most a post coronavirus recovery. I see that as illusive and the extent to which it comes will be as a global phenomenon making it difficult to portray as any particular party's achievement.
Post by Keema's Nan
In actual fact the sheeple are so dim, they do not realise that the battle is
really between the extreme right masquerading as Tories and the not quite so
extreme right masquerading as Labour.
You really are paying the British people enormous disrespect when you portray them as so dim and you as so bright. It is you that chases every conspiracy theory in sight mkaing yourself a laughing stock.
Post by Keema's Nan
No wonder the controllers shit themselves big time when Corbyn started
gaining popularity.
A howling mob is hardly popularity. It was the unions that put him in place and should never be allowed to forget it.

Corbyn is one of nature's idiots having zero academic ability he was the best ally the Tory party had for many a year. The tragedy is that we can't have more of him but good times have to come to an end I suppose.

Hopefully there will be others.

Have you hought of joining the Labour party?
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 09:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
It's time you revised your modern history
She sent a task force to the South Atlantic in resonse to an Argentinian invasion of British territory. What else would you expect any British Government to do?
The operation was a risk which could have gone either way. As it was thanks to the sinking of the Belgrano the Argentinian that sent the Argentinian Navy surring back to its ports denying it use of the seas around the Islands rendering reinforcement and supply of the lagely conscript Argentinean occupation force impossible. They were caught like rats in a trap.
Good God, you are indeed stark raving mad. Her penny-pinching government
defence-cuts - particularly the plan to withdraw HMS Endurance - sent a
clear message to the Argentinians which had them believing that the
British Government lack a strong committment in that area. Furthermore,
the sinking of the Belgrano was one of the most callous acts in British
military history - and in the fullness of time history will certainly
regard it has such.

She ordered the sinking of the Belgrano to scupper a proposed peace-plan
- when she badly needed that war to revive her political fortunes. It
was a war-crime, and all the cover-ups since, and the lies from the
usual suspects, won't change it.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Further the confinement of the Argentinean Navy to its home ports restricted the use of the Skyhawk aircraft, the only viable fighting force that they really had due to limitations in the range of the aircraft and the absence of flight refueling facilities.
The result is that the British flag still flies over Port Stanley The British there are more british than we are. They hate the Argies for at least a generation, are self governing and can have their independence for the asking but don't want it. They are prosperous and safe.
And soon the British flag won't fly in much of Britain due to policies
of the Thatchers of this world.



<The rest of the loony's nonsense put where it belongs?
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 09:55:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
And what did the idiot dragon do once she had created one of the worst
recessions in the 20th century?
She went to WAR, by sending a task force to the South Atlantic.
Works every time.
I wonder who the unlucky country or countries are going to be this time?
It's time you revised your modern history
She sent a task force to the South Atlantic in resonse to an Argentinian
invasion of British territory. What else would you expect any British
Government to do?
The operation was a risk which could have gone either way. As it was thanks
to the sinking of the Belgrano the Argentinian that sent the Argentinian
Navy surring back to its ports denying it use of the seas around the
Islands rendering reinforcement and supply of the lagely conscript
Argentinean occupation force impossible. They were caught like rats in a
trap.
Good God, you are indeed stark raving mad. Her penny-pinching government
defence-cuts - particularly the plan to withdraw HMS Endurance - sent a
clear message to the Argentinians which had them believing that the
British Government lack a strong committment in that area. Furthermore,
the sinking of the Belgrano was one of the most callous acts in British
military history - and in the fullness of time history will certainly
regard it has such.
She ordered the sinking of the Belgrano to scupper a proposed peace-plan
- when she badly needed that war to revive her political fortunes. It
was a war-crime, and all the cover-ups since, and the lies from the
usual suspects, won't change it.
Yes. That single act marks Thatcher down as a large scale war criminal, liar
and a cheat; worse even than Blair (which is saying something). The only
difference is the Tory = correct, Labour = wrong, attitude of 90% of MSM
which ensures the Belgrano murders are glossed over.

Thatcher then compounded her criminal status by befriending the most prolific
paedophile in the country, Jimmy Savile, and ensuring he would not be
prosecuted, and nor would anyone he was supplying.

And not content with that, she used the country’s police forces for blatant
political purposes during the miners’ strike.

There is a great quote in the Hilda Morrell murder book; “During the
miners’ strike, MI5 were out of control”. Has anything changed since
then?
JNugent
2020-06-29 00:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full
electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero was
busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working on
behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being unburied,
plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity to rival hand
sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 06:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full
electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working
on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being unburied,
plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity to rival hand
sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
Mark Devon
2020-06-29 06:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.))

Some people also swallowed Scummings' twists on reality. Scummings and BonZo.....what a pair of unemployable comedians, should be renamed wrt their intellectual capacity..... Little And Little.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 07:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Devon
((Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.))
Some people also swallowed Scummings' twists on reality. Scummings and
BonZo.....what a pair of unemployable comedians, should be renamed wrt their
intellectual capacity..... Little And Little.
Little and Less, even.

I suspect the authorities have Gove lined up as caretaker PM until Starmer is
considered to be ready. However, the problem will be delaying final Brexit
until Starmer can rescind the whole process and keep us in the EU on highly
unfavourable terms.

Things are about to get very interesting.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 07:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3
years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before
he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have
won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working
on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being unburied,
plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity to rival hand
sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
And our resident shit stirrer Nuge is trying desperately to goad people with
faux controversial posts.

It must be really sad when his life only revolves around belittling other
posters.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 07:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working
on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being unburied,
plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity to rival hand
sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
And our resident shit stirrer Nuge is trying desperately to goad people with
faux controversial posts.
It must be really sad when his life only revolves around belittling other
posters.
If it does then he must be highly frustrated, because I've only ever
seen him belittling himself.

I won't be wasting much time on him here, we've done all this before,
and his closed-mind is not interested in facts - but only his own
half-truths and bigoted opinions. Like his fellow-traveller Rowing, he
views the world through deluded and imagined tribal loyalties - which he
perceives as self-elevating.

Again like Rowing, he was probably the only member of his family who
could read and write, and count up to twenty without taking his shoes
off, so he thinks he's an intellectual. A common type among those who
grew up in post-war Britain.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 09:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3
years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before
he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have
won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be
given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full
electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look
arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories
sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those working
on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I suppose,
considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being unburied,
plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity to rival hand
sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
And our resident shit stirrer Nuge is trying desperately to goad people with
faux controversial posts.
It must be really sad when his life only revolves around belittling other
posters.
If it does then he must be highly frustrated, because I've only ever
seen him belittling himself.
I won't be wasting much time on him here, we've done all this before,
and his closed-mind is not interested in facts - but only his own
half-truths and bigoted opinions. Like his fellow-traveller Rowing, he
views the world through deluded and imagined tribal loyalties - which he
perceives as self-elevating.
Again like Rowing, he was probably the only member of his family who
could read and write, and count up to twenty without taking his shoes
off, so he thinks he's an intellectual. A common type among those who
grew up in post-war Britain.
I think they are robots.The human equivalent of mushrooms - but with added
mobility.

They never ever come up with an idea which is original. Everything they post
is from the official narrative and quoted almost verbatim.

It is all Tory = good, Labour = bad; no matter what the subject.

I can’t imagine they ever question anything they read on their favourite
news media, or hear/see on the BBC News. I suppose they are just what the
establishment are looking for in order to keep them in the dark and feed them
shit, as with mushrooms.

I notice Roger has been pulled by his handlers. Perhaps his obsession with
SAGE minutes became too much for them. He will probably re-appear later in
the year posting as usenet spokesman on Ascension Island or somewhere
similar.
JNugent
2020-06-29 11:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full
electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those
working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I
suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity
to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?

I (like you) was there to see it.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 11:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those
working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I
suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity
to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions, and a
combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 12:13:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3
years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before
he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake
was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well
have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be
given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full
electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look
arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories
sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those
working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I
suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity
to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions, and a
combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
Exactly.

I had just been posted to South Wales from the Thames Valley and we were
waiting to complete on the sale of our flat that winter. Despite all the crap
about disruptions, I had very little trouble driving back and forth a couple
of times a week from Nov 78 to Feb 79.

The weather was more of a problem than petrol, and I hardly ever saw any bin
bags in the street let alone piled 6 foot high (as the robotics would have
you believe). I never saw any coffins littering the pavements either.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 14:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3
years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to call
one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats before
he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those
working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I
suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity
to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions, and a
combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
Exactly.
I had just been posted to South Wales from the Thames Valley and we were
waiting to complete on the sale of our flat that winter. Despite all the crap
about disruptions, I had very little trouble driving back and forth a couple
of times a week from Nov 78 to Feb 79.
The weather was more of a problem than petrol, and I hardly ever saw any bin
bags in the street let alone piled 6 foot high (as the robotics would have
you believe). I never saw any coffins littering the pavements either.
Me neither. Lot of rubbish (no pun intended!) talked about the winter of
78/79.
JNugent
2020-06-29 13:46:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3 years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to
call one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats
before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your hero
was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of those
working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too much, I
suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a scarcity
to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.

The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.

There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I assume
not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city and town
centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of various types, not
all of it immediately perishable, arising out of everyday activity.
Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other city centres? Or did the
BBC and ITN just make it up?

As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where I
was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in short
supply due to a lorry-driver strike.

Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.

Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering London
airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When immediately
asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis, replied that
Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people in other parts
of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a crisis (as though it
had anything to do with them).

His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.

As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that the
snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket shelves
will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the slightest bit
better at the point of impact - does it?

The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as far
as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a
combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why do
you seek to disguise it?
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 14:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
If you think that is bad, remember James Callaghan survived 3
years without
any vote by the electorate, and when he did finally have to
call one in
1979,
he lost it.
PM for three years and the public had no say whatsoever. And
remember that
Harold Wilson had only struggled to a majority of 3 seats
before he retired.
Yes I know the Liberals propped them up, but there was no electoral
endorsement of PM Callaghan, ever.
But still one of the best PMs we ever had. His biggest mistake was not
calling an election in the autumn of 1978, which he might well have won.
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to be given the
green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went into full electioneering
mode that Autumn but nothing happened. Callaghan started to look arrogant,
pretended that the whole episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and
that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I assume
not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city and town
centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of various types, not
all of it immediately perishable, arising out of everyday activity.
Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other city centres? Or did the
BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where I
was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in short
supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering London
airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When immediately
asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis, replied that
Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people in other parts
of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a crisis (as though it
had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that the
snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket shelves
will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the slightest bit
better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as far
as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why do
you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim. Where I was
in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five years later.
JNugent
2020-06-29 14:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I assume
not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city and town
centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of various types,
not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of everyday
activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other city centres?
Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where I
was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the slightest
bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why do
you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was
in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 16:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to  look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?' Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.

I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-29 16:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for
you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?'
No he didn’t; that was a Sun headline from the day after his return from
the tropics I believe.
Post by Farmer Giles
Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
I can’t say I disliked him, but he struck me as arrogant. When I lived in
Wales he always seem to mention how he was working class because he still
rented a council house in Cardiff; and I thought - why?

Surely he was depriving a family of a council house, and could afford to stay
in a hotel on his pay when he came back there?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
Ah yes, but the right wing narrative is that all Brummie car workers were
communists and spent most of their shifts drinking and sleeping, or going on
strike because they were not allowed to have a day off if it was raining.

Don’t worry the usual suspects will soon be queuing up to tell us of the
times they visited Midlands car plants and formed very bad opinions - nothing
to do with what they read in the Daily Mail (which must be true).And then
they would have been invited to look around Japanese car plants while on
holiday and found all the workers did 18 hours a day without a break for 50p
and even came back during their time off, thus producing 100 cars for every
one made by a Brummie.
Post by Farmer Giles
I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-06-29 18:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:51:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for
you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?'
No he didn’t; that was a Sun headline from the day after his return from
the tropics I believe.
Post by Farmer Giles
Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
I can’t say I disliked him, but he struck me as arrogant. When I lived in
Wales he always seem to mention how he was working class because he still
rented a council house in Cardiff; and I thought - why?
Surely he was depriving a family of a council house, and could afford to stay
in a hotel on his pay when he came back there?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
Ah yes, but the right wing narrative is that all Brummie car workers were
communists and spent most of their shifts drinking and sleeping, or going on
strike because they were not allowed to have a day off if it was raining.
Or stealing stuff from work.
Don’t worry the usual suspects will soon be queuing up to tell us of the
times they visited Midlands car plants and formed very bad opinions - nothing
to do with what they read in the Daily Mail (which must be true).And then
they would have been invited to look around Japanese car plants while on
holiday and found all the workers did 18 hours a day without a break for 50p
and even came back during their time off, thus producing 100 cars for every
one made by a Brummie.
Which is why the Japanese car industry survived and the British car
industry died.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-06-29 18:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to  look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?' Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
Margaret Thatcher SAVED British industry, Naan. Were it not for her,
people like you would still be working down pit.
abelard
2020-06-29 18:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:28:35 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to  look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?' Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
Margaret Thatcher SAVED British industry, Naan. Were it not for her,
people like you would still be working down pit.
commies need their myths...reality is such a pain
--
www.abelard.org
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-06-29 19:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:28:35 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed to
be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to  look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it at
the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some people
in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it constituted a
crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept that
the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all bad
weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are all
industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know that
the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the supermarket
shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel the
slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making threats
and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not internalise the
injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so all was well as
far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic terms,
or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than what passed
for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad* (however you want to
define "bad") by comparison with normal availability of goods and
services. James Callaghan failed to understand that and demonstrated
that failure with a single sentence. had he understood it (he didn't),
he wouild not have been so asinine as to give the dismissive answer he
did give. It came across to the public as "Stop whingeing" when they
felt they had every right to complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine. His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?' Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
Margaret Thatcher SAVED British industry, Naan. Were it not for her,
people like you would still be working down pit.
commies need their myths...reality is such a pain
We were poor but we were happy....
JNugent
2020-06-29 19:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
[Callaghan's possibility of winning a 1978 election]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Yes, he probably would; and the left of centre media seemed
to be given the green light by someone, as the Daily Mirror went
into full electioneering mode that Autumn but nothing happened.
Callaghan started to  look arrogant, pretended that the whole
episode was simply to make the Tories sweat, and that was that.
"Crisis? What crisis?".
Many people had a bigger crisis a little while later when your
hero was busy destroy everything - while doing the bidding of
those working on behalf of the City. We shouldn't blame her too
much, I suppose, considering she was too stupid to realise it
at the time.
Yes, Lawson and Howe really hoodwinked the useful idiot.
Rubbish piling high in the streets ((6' +) and the dead being
unburied, plus fuel being unavailable and even salt being a
scarcity to rival hand sanitiser doesn't constitute a crisis for you?
Looks like someone swallowed all the media exaggerations.
"Media"?
I (like you) was there to see it.
What you saw were patchy and generally short-lived disruptions,
I'll agree with a little bit of that, but certainly not all of it.
The bit I agree with is that the rubbish and refuse mountain *was* patchy.
There was no rubbish piling up at my house, for instance, and I
assume not at yours either. The effects were felt and seen in city
and town centres, where there is a lot of commercial waste, of
various types, not all of it immediately perishable, arising out of
everyday activity. Remember how Leicester Square looked? Or other
city centres? Or did the BBC and ITN just make it up?
As for early 1979 shortages, there was a late winter cold snap where
I was living, but salt, whether rock-salt of table salt, was just
impossible to find. It was just one of the things that was then in
short supply due to a lorry-driver strike.
Then there was the tanker-drivers' strike, and fuel being either
unavailable or available only in small, locally-rationed, amounts. A
great hardship for anyone whose weekly mileage was measured in four figures.
Then, in the middle of all that, Callaghan arrived at a shivering
London airport, back from the Bahamas (or somewhere similar). When
immediately asked (at the airport) by reporters about the crisis,
replied that Britain wasn't experiencing a crisis because some
people in other parts of the world wouldn't agree that it
constituted a crisis (as though it had anything to do with them).
His reply was paraphrased as: "Crisis? What Crisis?" for headline
purposes. That was a fair summary of his reply. he didn't accept
that the UK was in crisis under his government.
As for it being short-lived, that's a fair comment. But so is all
bad weather. So are all shortages. So (seen in the long term) are
all industrial disputes peevishly aimed at the public. We all know
that the snow will melt and diappear and that eventually, the
supermarket shelves will be restocked. But that doesn't make it feel
the slightest bit better at the point of impact - does it?
The fact is that by early 1979, British trade unions were out of
control. They were so used to getting their own way by making
threats and/or carrying them out that their leaders could not
internalise the injustice of the situation. It was good for them, so
all was well as far as they were concerned.
Post by Farmer Giles
and a combination of a selective memory, wishful-thinking and media
distortions has filled in all the blanks.
I was there. So were you. You know that the above is the truth. Why
do you seek to disguise it?
Because it was nowhere near as bad as people like you claim.
It was bad. No-one has described it apocalyptic or intergalactic
terms, or tried to compare it - adversely - to anything other than
what passed for normality in those days. It was *certainly bad*
(however you want to define "bad") by comparison with normal
availability of goods and services. James Callaghan failed to
understand that and demonstrated that failure with a single sentence.
had he understood it (he didn't), he wouild not have been so asinine
as to give the dismissive answer he did give. It came across to the
public as "Stop whingeing" when they felt they had every right to
complain.
James Callaghan was a man who had served in the Royal Navy during WWII -
as his father had during WWI. Consequentially, he would have witnessed
and experienced things that most of us can barely imagine.
And the relevance of that is what?
Post by Farmer Giles
His response
to media hectoring early in 1979, and I remember it well, was simply to
attempt to put things into perspective - and he did not say: 'crisis,
what crisis?'
I *said* that he didn't say that in those words so why you feel the need
to try to point it out is unclear. The newspaper headline was still a
fair paraphrasing of what he did say, because he did say in terms that
he didn't agree that Britain was in crisis (even though it plainly was).
Post by Farmer Giles
Overall, Callaghan dealt with the great difficulties he
faced during that period - which were not of his making, nor for that
matter Wilson before him - extremely well. I regard him as a great man.
Wilson caved in to the NUM immediately on taking office in early 1974.
Other unions followed suit and he had to cave in to them as well (all to
do with what he called the "social contract"). He never managed to climb
out of that hole. Neither did Callaghan (who I will agree was a nicer
cove than Wilson was).
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Where I was in the West Midlands things were a damn sight worse five
years later.
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
That is further nonsense, apart from the car industry - which you
obviously allude to - the region was not known for a high degree of
trade union militancy or industrial action - unlike other places such as
Liverpool.
I won't argue about the former Standard-Triumph works at Speke. A friend
"worked" there and never seemed not to be on strike. A neighbour worked
at Ford and things weren't so bad there, but I still recall a long
strike there too.

But you *have* to be joking about Birmingham.

What was the longest the Austin works ever managed to work in the 70s
without a strike?
Post by Farmer Giles
I know that you want to harp on about trade unions, and somehow use them
to excuse Thatcher's destruction of British industry, but what happened
to manufacturing regions like the West Midlands in the 1980s had very
little to do with that. It was simply about policies which were geared
to helping the money-men in the City make even more, but were disastrous
for British industry.
You don't put much store by the average consumer having little use for
cars which seemed all to have beeen made on a Friday afternoon (assuming
anyone wanted to stay as late as that on a Friday), rusted away within a
few years from new and had a tendency to refuse to start, even within
their guarantee period?

I had an Austin car - brand new in 1978, bought as the act of a
patriotic buyer - which met every last bit of that description. It cured
me of patriotic buying, that's for sure. After that, I did buy one more
British built car from another manufacturer - but never again, because
it too rotted away. Spanish and French cars have never given any of
those troubles. I understand that Japanese cars are also of higher
quality than an Austin or Morris owner could have dreamt of, but I've
never had one so can't confirm it from personal experience.

Patriotic consideration is all very well, as long as it is reciprocated.
But as you know full well, it never was.

Joe
2020-06-29 19:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:54:08 +0100
Post by JNugent
The West Midlands was possibly the last part of England where "the
1970s" happened. I suspect that some local politicians there (not to
mention trade union leaders in one particular industry) believed that
the region was immune to economic shock and also had great faith -
entirely misplaced - in their own irreplaceability.
I can recall (not verbatim) Jack Dash stating that the London docks
would never handle containers.

He was exactly right of course, though I doubt that when he said it he
envisaged that his prediction would come to pass because of the
elimination of docks from London. I suspect his members didn't, either.
--
Joe
Joe
2020-06-26 12:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:04:03 +0100
Post by MM
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
The bottom line is that the PM is not elected by the people, and never
has been.

Live with it.

Or campaign to change it, if you feel as strongly about it as your
postings imply.

The people don't get to say what MPs should do about anything else once
they're elected, why should choosing the PM be any different?
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2020-06-26 12:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:04:03 +0100
Post by MM
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
The bottom line is that the PM is not elected by the people, and never
has been.
Live with it.
Or campaign to change it, if you feel as strongly about it as your
postings imply.
The people don't get to say what MPs should do about anything else once
they're elected,
Cummings seems to, and very regularly it would appear.
Post by Joe
why should choosing the PM be any different?
Cummings is getting paid for doing that.
Andy Walker
2020-06-26 18:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Post by MM
It's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
Not that election. The relevant GE was that of June 2017.
The resulting HoC had full power to support or to chuck out firstly
Mrs May and later Mr Johnson, in exactly the same way that the
Bundestag could have supported or chucked out Dr Merkel. It chose
to support both of them, even though it was a "hung" Parliament and
a coalition of other parties would have had a majority.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
I don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. [...]
Mrs May was not elected PM by the Conservatives, but by her
ability to form a government, for which she needed a majority in the
HoC. As Conservative MPs were in the minority, it was in the gift
of the HoC to maintain her, and later Mr Johnson, in post or not, no
matter what the Conservative party did.
Post by MM
The difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
No matter how stark you think the difference, it's not a
/relevant/ difference. Dr Merkel is kept in office by commanding
a majority in the Bundestag, Mr Johnson [and before him Mrs May]
by a majority in the HoC. That's a majority of /MPs/, not a
majority of /Conservative/ MP, in cases where there's a difference
[as there was in 2010-2015 and in 2017-2019].
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Mr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say.
How does that differ from Dr Merkel becoming leader of her
party without "the people" having a say? It is perfectly normal
for party leaders to become leaders by whatever process that party
has agreed, no matter what the rest of us think.
Post by MM
Only months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held.
But it wasn't at Mr Johnson's whim, not by a long chalk. You
have perhaps forgotten the FTPA, and that the opposition refused to
support the calling of an election for some time after Mr Johnson
made it clear that he wanted one. Whether the opposition should have
had that power is a moot point; as so often, a law which solved one
problem created another, perhaps worse. But that's democracy.
Post by MM
Maybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ.
FTPA, again. To call an early election he would have needed to
lose a VoNC [and not reverse it quickly] or to secure the support of
over 400 MPs, many more than his own party. Mr Johnson, you may have
forgotten, did indeed win a VoNC, despite all the concerns/shenanigans
over Brexit, but did not have the necessary support of the opposition
to call a GE until late in 2019.
Post by MM
I don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
Possibly not. But he managed to retain majority support in
the HoC, which is what you were claiming [mutatis mutandis] is the
requirement in Germany too.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
You will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.
From Brown's page on Wikipedia: [...]
"...no election any time soon...
I rest my case m'lud.
In 2007 he had a substantial majority in the HoC, so whatever
he decided was, short of a revolt within his party, decisive. My
point was about 2010, when he could not form a government, despite
being PM at the time, and therefore had to resign.

[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
Yes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
A VoNC does take place among all MPs. There is no /relevant/
difference between Dr Merkel securing the support of a majority in
the Bundestag and Mr Johnson doing the same in the HoC. Whether that
vote takes the form of a no-confidence motion or a confidence motion
is irrelevant; the result depends on securing an absolute majority.
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
either Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
No, it's the MPs as a whole who hold "the whip hand", as Mr
Johnson found through a large part of 2019. The whips would simply
have been advising [in this case] Mr Corbyn that Mr Johnson would
win a VoNC.

[...]
Post by MM
Post by Andy Walker
It happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.
Not in my book. Our system stinks.
It's the same "democracy" that you espouse in the case of
Germany. Mr Blair resigned as PM and as Labour leader. Someone had
to take over as leader of the party. Because -- and only because --
Labour had an absolute majority, that leader also became PM. When
Mrs May resigned and Mr Johnson took over a party leader, the HoC
was well within its rights to refuse to support him and to elect
Mr Corbyn or any other MP as PM -- the other parties in the HoC had
an absolute majority between them. But, as above, no-one overtly
stood against him; on the contrary, he won a VoNC. Had this been
Germany, he would equally have won a majority in the Bundestag given
the same party representations and alliances.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-06-22 11:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very
lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets
Scummings run the show.
And you haven't?
The Tory party won a large majority at the last election with Boris in
place. All those people were wrong but you were right?
Many Tory voters now feel they were duped. They thought they were getting a
humorous titan who would Get Brexit Done.

Instead they got an incompetent bungler with no leadership ability as the
Covid epidemic has shown. Everything he touches turns to ashes.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-22 12:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very
lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets
Scummings run the show.
And you haven't?
The Tory party won a large majority at the last election with Boris in
place. All those people were wrong but you were right?
Many Tory voters now feel they were duped. They thought they were getting a
humorous titan who would Get Brexit Done.
You could say that about any winning party after any election it'ts you untested opinion
Post by Pamela
Instead they got an incompetent bungler with no leadership ability as the
Covid epidemic has shown. Everything he touches turns to ashes.
See above!

Again a totally subjective assessment of the position.

the next election will take place on Thursday 2 May 2024. Plenty of time for either party to gain a 10-15 % point lead and lose it again. There is no and won't be any campaigning for votes for quite a time yet. But just wait!

Labour have still not done anything to alleviate the problems of antisemitism. Jews have long memories.

More seriously, Labour still has made no progress regarding its left wing. Marxists still sit on the opposition benche and there is nothing that will shift them other than a deselection purge that would split the party down the middle. Kinnock did not as claimed purge the party of Militant. He simply changed their name to Momentum.

There is nothing on the Tory benches that brings greater ire to voters than Corbyn, McDonnell, Long Bailey, Abbot (it'll be a sad day for the Tories when she goes!), Cat Smith,

There is no appetite for such politics in this country. Wait for the storm as 2024 approaches.
Pamela
2020-06-22 13:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Pamela
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very
lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets
Scummings run the show.
And you haven't?
The Tory party won a large majority at the last election with Boris
in place. All those people were wrong but you were right?
Many Tory voters now feel they were duped. They thought they were
getting a humorous titan who would Get Brexit Done.
You could say that about any winning party after any election it'ts you untested opinion
Post by Pamela
Instead they got an incompetent bungler with no leadership ability as
the Covid epidemic has shown. Everything he touches turns to ashes.
See above!
Again a totally subjective assessment of the position.
the next election will take place on Thursday 2 May 2024. Plenty of time
for either party to gain a 10-15 % point lead and lose it again. There
is no and won't be any campaigning for votes for quite a time yet. But
just wait!
Labour have still not done anything to alleviate the problems of
antisemitism. Jews have long memories.
More seriously, Labour still has made no progress regarding its left
wing. Marxists still sit on the opposition benche and there is nothing
that will shift them other than a deselection purge that would split the
party down the middle. Kinnock did not as claimed purge the party of
Militant. He simply changed their name to Momentum.
There is nothing on the Tory benches that brings greater ire to voters
than Corbyn, McDonnell, Long Bailey, Abbot (it'll be a sad day for the
Tories when she goes!), Cat Smith,
There is no appetite for such politics in this country. Wait for the
storm as 2024 approaches.
An election is not a measure of competence.

Robert Mugabe was elected but that didn't make him a good leader.
Ian Jackson
2020-06-22 12:55:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
So, the Tory party made a big mistake. An incompetent and very very
lazy PM is what they have inflicted onto the UK.....and one who lets
Scummings run the show.
And you haven't?
The Tory party won a large majority at the last election with Boris in
place. All those people were wrong but you were right?
No matter how many people think something is 'right', what they think is
'right' can still be 'wrong'.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Just like the court you stood before. You were right. They were wrong!
A court can find an innocent man guilty - but that doesn't always mean
he WAS guilty (and vice versa).
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It made very little difference to your fate!
Whether right or wrong, the present policies of the Tory government are
being visited both on those who were right, and on those who were wrong.
We're all doomed!
--
Ian
Keema's Nan
2020-06-22 08:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Mark, Devon
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and
their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or
meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at
Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently.
BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.>>
This man had a massive criminal record. The Tory government and
Mismanagement BonZo should hang their disgusting heads in shame, again.
So have you! Stop throwing stones in your greenhouse. He is the sovereign's
first minister. That's what his title means.
He was elected to this position as per convention, thorough the democratic
processes of the Tory party being the largest party currently sitting in the
HoC. Should this position change for any reason then he would tender his
resignation to the Queen.
I think you confuse the Queen with Dominic Cummings.

BoJo would have to tender his resignation to Cummings, and have it accepted,
before it could be rubber stamped by Her Maj.
MM
2020-06-22 09:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently. BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.>>
This man had a massive criminal record. The Tory government and Mismanagement BonZo should hang their disgusting heads in shame, again.
So have you! Stop throwing stones in your greenhouse. He is the sovereign's first minister. That's what his title means.
He was elected to this position as per convention,
Yes, sadly NOT by the British electorate when he first became leader
of the Tory party.

But that's "democracy" for ya! British style.

MM
Keema's Nan
2020-06-22 08:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Mark, Devon
The government is in charge of the security services, their management and
their resourcing. BonZo is incapable of doing anything practical or
meaningful, and is saturated in waffle and bluster.....I mean, look at
Track and Trace....world beating system a couple of weeks ago, apparently.
BonZo is a fool, and fools are taken in by fools.>>
This man had a massive criminal record. The Tory government and Mismanagement
BonZo should hang their disgusting heads in shame, again.
They should, but they won’t because the security services are out of
control and believe (probably correctly after the Skripal fiasco) they can do
anything they like, anywhere they like.

If it goes completely wrong and innocent civilians die, that is too bad -
national security and (more importantly) a massive increase in their pay
budget is at stake.
Mark, Devon
2020-06-22 09:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In what (if any) capacity do people think the government is or should be involved with the operations of the security services, and their link and co-operation with other agencies? As far as I can see it, Mel thinks it's not to do with the government or BonZo....they have no responsibility or accountability for how these organisations interact (which is just how BonZo likes it).
p***@gmail.com
2020-06-21 21:09:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been 'known by the security services' under this disconnected Tory government, and disconnected PM?
I recall a couple of years ago a figure quoted for people 'known by the security services' but I can't remember where. It was in four figures. There's a limit to how much you can surveil, and there's a limit to what you can prevent by doing so.

You can then add numbers for other activity such as drug, arms, cyber, abuse, modern slavery and people trafficking etc.

Patrick
p***@gmail.com
2020-06-22 21:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Mark, Devon
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been 'known by the security services' under this disconnected Tory government, and disconnected PM?
I recall a couple of years ago a figure quoted for people 'known by the security services' but I can't remember where. It was in four figures. There's a limit to how much you can surveil, and there's a limit to what you can prevent by doing so.
You can then add numbers for other activity such as drug, arms, cyber, abuse, modern slavery and people trafficking etc.
Patrick
By chance, on R4's World at One 22.6.20

800 live terrorism investigations
43,000 have come to the attention of security services

Patrick
Pancho
2020-06-22 10:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
....people who commit terrorist activities will be shown to have been 'known by the security services' under this disconnected Tory government, and disconnected PM?
Presumably ~67 million citizens are known to government.

About 2.5 million Muslims in UK.

What should the government do to stop any of them committing crimes,
expel them all, jail them all?

So it all depends what known to the security services means? Presumably
a great many people are known to the services, but haven't committed
crimes.

How many do you think are known to security services? What would you do
with them?
Loading...