Attn Sinkov

[sinkov]

Here you are 59, remember this when I pointed out that 7 of the 14 characteristics of Fascism applied to the LibDems ?

"Sinkov, I can't believe you spent so much time putting that together. You are so far off the mark you nearly shot yourself in the arse. If you really want me to respond in detail then please tell me - but is it really necessary?"

I'm not surprised you weren't keen to respond, a bit too close to the truth, especially the policy of invalidating the votes of 17.4 million people, straight out of the fascist playbook that one. I was intrigued to find this from Guy Arnold, he's obviously noticed the same traits that I had,

"Ever since WW2 the British have denounced fascism, yet people who do so often hold views close to that the term embraces. What they disapprove of is the conventional stereotype of the Fascist; they have no objection against the essence of Fascism."

The essence of Fascism 59, 7 of the 14 characteristics of Fascism applied to the LibDems, I think that constitutes more than an essence, don't you ? But not to worry, the great British public don't like extreme political organisations and they deservedly banished the LibDems to the margins of our political scene. Where hopefully they will languish for a very long time.

[sinkov]

What's yours sinkov?

Sorry BT, can't help, my way of making money at Cheltenham just doesn't lend itself to individual tips, I start betting ante-post in Autumn and by the time this week comes round I have more bets on the go than you can shake a ****ty stick at. Today I had 27 running for me, almost all EW bets, Shiskin won @ 6/1, Kildisart 2nd @ 10/1, Sharjah 2nd @ 16/1, I was on Imperial Aura @ 25/1, which went off 4/1 fav and won. Despite that I only made a small profit, too many didn't run into a place and I could have done with one of the 2nds winning.

22 bets tomorrow, too many to list them all, but I am taking on Tiger Roll in the Cross Country, the French are getting closer and closer to winning this and Emmanuel Clayeux is running three, I like the two at the biggest prices with similar names, Arlequin D'Allier and Diesel D'Allier both each-way. Of course they could both bomb out, and Tiger Roll could hack up, but if they do I still have 20 others running for me.

[1959_60]

"I'm not surprised you weren't keen to respond, a bit too close to the truth, especially the policy of invalidating the votes of 17.4 million people, straight out of the fascist playbook that one."

That's rubbish and you must know it is.
Surely you realise that a party of true conviction will hold it's beliefs even when it is defeated. It won't suddenly say, "Having thought about it, you were right all along".
But, to be fair, you may have a point if we didn't have a democracy.
Without winning over sufficient voters then it doesn't matter in our system.
We tried like fury to win the argument, and we were definitely getting there steadily, but Jo made two fatal errors.
First, the revoke thing. It was unnecessary and not very well explained.
Second, when she said "I am standing here as a candidate to be your next PM". This was, of course, true, but it came across as arrogant.
A bit like "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government"
Normally, in an election campaign, the Lib Dems pick up support.
In this one we went from around 25% down to 11.5%.
I wonder what Jo is thinking today?

By the way, I didn't expect the argument to be a re-hash of Brexit. Plenty of time to argue about that once we see what kind of deals we get from the EU, USA and China.

I'll try to think of summat....

[outwoodclaret]

To Sinkov and 1959_60

Were you looking for the full course of arguments or just a single starter?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I wonder what Jo is thinking today?

Probably exactly the same as before Christmas - not very much 1959_60.

I don't think your Jo is much of a thinker - do you?

[sinkov]

"Surely you realise that a party of true conviction will hold it's beliefs even when it is defeated. It won't suddenly say, "Having thought about it, you were right all along".

Morning 59.

The LibDems campaigned in the referendum, then when it turned out they'd lost, they decided they weren't going to abide by the result, they were going to arbitrarily cancel 17.4 million votes and overturn it. They weren't forced to take part in the referendum, if they weren't prepared to accept the result they could have stood aside and refused to play any part in it, but they didn't, they played a full part, and then when it turned out they'd lost, they refused to accept the result was valid. That's not 'true conviction', it's authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, extremism, call it what you like but it's certainly not democracy.

And if you still don't think the LibDems are now extremists, can you tell me of any policy, promulgated by any mainstream political party in the UK, or indeed in any democratic country, that was more extreme than overturning the result of the largest democratic vote ever held in that country ? In your own time mon ami.

[sinkov]

To Sinkov and 1959_60

Were you looking for the full course of arguments or just a single starter?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Me, 59 and BT on politics are better than any Monty Python sketch Outwood, although you'll get more sense from Monty Python than you ever will from BT and 59.

[1959_60]

Me, 59 and BT on politics are better than any Monty Python sketch Outwood, although you'll get more sense from Monty Python than you ever will from BT and 59.

Oye!

I heard that.

[1959_60]

"The LibDems campaigned in the referendum, then when it turned out they'd lost, they decided they weren't going to abide by the result, they were going to arbitrarily cancel 17.4 million votes and overturn it."

How on earth could the Lib Dems arbitrarily cancel Brexit??

The only way would have been to try to convince a majority of the country and for the country to decide by a GE or a referendum.
And that is how our democracy works.

"And if you still don't think the LibDems are now extremists, can you tell me of any policy, promulgated by any mainstream political party in the UK, or indeed in any democratic country, that was more extreme than overturning the result of the largest democratic vote ever held in that country ? In your own time mon ami."

Hanging was an issue that divided the country. It was finally abolished in 1969 after many years of argy bargy from both sides.
There is a move by some Tory MP's to bring hanging back. If there were to be a referendum on it, and it was passed, then I for one (and I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems) would campaign strongly for it's abolition once again.
But we would not be "going to arbitrarily cancel 17.4 million votes and overturn it." That is complete nonsense and you know it.
But we would strongly campaign for it's abolition - which has been normal practice in a democracy since the year dot.

The suffragettes spent years campaigning to get their wish. Are you calling then fascists?

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Bloody hell 1959_60 it took you a while to dream up this response and you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Emily and her mates went through hell and back to get the right to vote. Jo and her cronies tried to make a majority vote an irrelevance.

Democracy my arse!