OT: IN the end you get the PM you deserve

[Elite_Pie]

What has become obvious in this contest (apart from the hideous certainty of Boris becoming PM) is that Tory MPs know who is going to win, and increasingly base their votes on their prospects of getting a job under him rather than any genuine principles. They didn't support Boris in the first few rounds, but are now falling over themselves to kiss his arse!

Yes Soccerman and seriouspie, I realise that Labour are every bit as useless as the Tories at the moment, so your anticipated 'Marxist terrorist loving Jew hating scumbag' posts are unnecessary.

[dam617]

Stewart doesn't fill me with charisma.

He did get posted to Afghanistan on secondment during his Gap Year. He spent 3 months there saw no action, spent it doing admin and was so loathed by the full time professional Squaddies, they nicknamed him
Gladys of Belgravia

Has nobody told the nodding dogs on here that Wodderwick has been weleased?

[BigFatPie]

I thought you said your point was not political? This sounds pretty much like your usual "right-leaning people are just wrong" presumption. Your argument appears to be that if everyone was better "informed", they would vote the same way you do, i.e. Remain and presumably for a non-right-wing party. To me that sounds rather arrogant, if not extreme. None of us is guaranteed to be right or wrong.


There are plenty of "informed" people who support leaving the EU, and even if they are in the minority (which isn't a given, despite what some elements of the media imply) then it doesn't mean that they are wrong.
.

Fair enough, I did get party political with that last post. Although I don’t really regard it as left or right, more “evidence based” and “non-evidence based”. I agree that it wasn’t a good format and that Maitlis didn’t control it very well. I would also say that it’s a shame it has led to the ending of Rory Stewart’s chances, I don’t agree with on much, but he seems like a thoughtful, realistic type of person.

Our Forest chums on here seem a bit shy of linking where they get their info from, so if you have any links to the informed people who think leaving the EU is a good idea, I’d be keen to read them.

[i961pie]

All right, fiddly man, I've never been back to live there, only to visit.

Now you know how the rest of us feel when you need to correct every small mistake we make

[jackal2]

...it’s a shame it has led to the ending of Rory Stewart’s chances, I don’t agree with on much, but he seems like a thoughtful, realistic type of person.

Agreed. I've been aware of Rory Stewart for several years, long before the leadership contest, because a friend of mine from Cumbria told me to watch out for this rising star they had up there and brought me one or two articles Rory wrote for the local press on farming issues and such like. There's no doubt he's eloquent, intelligent and talented, and I do respect him for sticking to views on Europe even though I don't share (some) of them. Timing is everything in politics and the unfortunate reality for Rory is that a party which has just lost a lot of its vote to Nigel Farage, and fears doing so again at a General Election, is not presently going to elect as its leader a man whose message (on the approach to the EU) isn't in tune with its grassroots voters. It's a shame for Rory, as it was for Ken Clarke, but Rory is still young and his time may come, if and when the EU membership issue is no longer first on the agenda.

Our Forest chums on here seem a bit shy of linking where they get their info from, so if you have any links to the informed people who think leaving the EU is a good idea, I’d be keen to read them.

Unsurprisingly, the Guardian asserts that the majority of big British business leaders are worried about the fall-out from a no-deal Brexit, but just for an example, even that newspaper saw fit to produce an article on some pretty successful business leaders who are 'backing Brexit', some of whom (e.g. Tim Martin) have been more than willing to appear on various media channels explaining their views:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...backing-brexit

In truth, the nature of the debate on both sides is that a lot of people tend to "hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest", but if it really was so clear-cut that remaining versus leaving was a straight-forward and provable case of right versus wrong, or correct versus incorrect, then the debate would never have lasted this long. We all have our views, and if nothing else, the Brexit debate seems to have increased interest in politics amongst a group of people who had previously become very apathetic. People might now be saying they are "bored of Brexit", but they're still debating it with a fair amount of passion.

[dam617]

I didn't see it nor do i remember one of your posts getting deleted but I imagine it was explosive stuff that the establishment didn't want us to see. Feel free to post it again thought I'm sure it wouldn't be deleted twice, especially if it's out in the open already.

Is this the proof of the sad lefty fake news BBC trying to pretend nobody cheered for no deal on Question Time? I hope they sacked the person who's job it is to rig the audience in favour of remain.

https://youtu.be/aO8myQF3aLQ

Is that it, daft lad? Ten seconds?
I know what I saw, Fiona Bruce flapping and wetting her knickers.


For those of you watching at home that applause wasn't as loud as it sounded.
PSML.
Needs to be on a T-shirt.

[Trickytreesreds]

And the BBC pull another gem out of their ass.

https://news.sky.com/story/leadershi...weets-11744904

[drillerpie]

Yes.

Depends what you mean by 'total'. I accept you can't have direct accountability for everyone in public life, but there should be at least indirect accountability, to keep people reasonably honest. And yes, if we want to consider ourselves a democracy then by definition we should have trust in the people's judgement (whether it turns out to be right or not). The opposite is to not trust the public to make decisions, in which case you're leaning towards a dictatorship, be that a good or bad thing.



A police officer swears to uphold the law, and legislation is decided by our elected Parliament. Admittedly, the waters get muddier when you factor in interpretation of the law by (unelected) judges, but at present it's the system we've got be it right or wrong.
Regarding police complaints, I suppose you can say that independent regulators such as OFCOM or the Independent Office for Police Conduct have a certain democratic legitimacy in being set up by the elected government to serve a purpose, but there's an argument for more direct public involvement in them. Whether the public would be interested is another matter. In America there's a culture around direct election of public servants, but the Police & Crime Commissioner elections in this country haven't really caught the public's imagination, for better or worse.



Poignant question. My dad died from cancer from smoking and for all the public health warnings, he only believed it was killing him when much of the damage was already done. Likewise, I can't believe the number of young people I still see smoking, given the prevalence and strength of the warnings you're talking about.

Again, the elected Parliament ultimately played their part in changing the legislation on smoking advertising, so at least there's indirect democratic accountability in that decision. Ultimately though, it is still the responsibility of the public to educate themselves, or at least research the validity of warnings they receive from others.

Ok well I'm glad we agree on the first point, I think that's the most important one. I think we also agree on the second point too if we say that we live a democracy but a representative democracy in which it is neither possibile nor desirable for every single action by every single public servant to have to be aligned with the public will. Obviously we need to find a balance between having the general direction of travel chosen by the public and then letting competent people get on with their jobs.

As regards the rest I would say that the BBC has a mandate to inform and entertain (whether you think it does that is another question but the aim is a noble one) plus a regulator to enforce breaches of the rules. So has the same level of accountability as other institutions you mentioned. Whether they need more public representation on the regulatory bodies I don't know, an elected judiciary scares me a bit if I'm honest. We're getting into something similar to the general will in Rousseau or the common will in Sieyès here, hugely complex ideas.

I'm sorry to hear about your dad, I chose cigarettes because it is an obvious case of deliberately misleading advertising being employed. If I change it to making outrageous untrue claims about washing powder or toothpaste how do you feel about that? Should that be regulated by a public body or should we let companies say what they want because the public will figure it out in the end (hopefully)?

I'd also be interested to know what you think about my last question: we've had a glimpse into a world similar to the one you describe as ideal, where politicians can speak unchallenged and the public can make their minds up. To me it looks far from ideal, how does it look to you, does the system you described work?

[drillerpie]

Is that it, daft lad? Ten seconds?
I know what I saw, Fiona Bruce flapping and wetting her knickers.


For those of you watching at home that applause wasn't as loud as it sounded.
PSML.
Needs to be on a T-shirt.

Aww he called me "daft lad" in an attempt to bluff his way out of a weak debating position, how quaint.

[sidders]

Aww he called me "daft lad" in an attempt to bluff his way out of a weak debating position, how quaint.

He's one of the must to avoids on here, Driller. Along with me, of course.