O/T Democracy

There's little doubt in my opinion that those that champion the free market ideology definitely like to criticise their neighbours back garden rather than front out some uncomfortable truths about the state of their own cabbage patch lawns , it's a pretty good assumption that they are sheltered from the realities of these policies and so in effect don't give a fuq .

Trump , Johnson and Brexit happened because of the catastrophic failures of neoliberalism to put its own house in order and things have clearly come to a head .

When profit is king then there are consequences to face , unethical policies that inflict on the environment and the exploitation of workers tend not to be popular .

When goods and services that aren't produced despite a necessity because there's little profit in them tends not to be popular either .

Give it enough time and you create the UK of today which is to say is pretty much dumped at the doorstep of free market capitalism .

Your fuq up but without ever wanting to take full responsibility for it would be a pretty much good take on the situation .

Looking at what’s happening in that democratic organisation called the Labour Party I’m expecting the ice picks to come out of the cupboard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill

Looking at what’s happening in that democratic organisation called the Labour Party I’m expecting the ice picks to come out of the cupboard

---

Democratic to a certain extent that it drives policy from the various strains of its membership but falls incredibly short when it comes to satisfying it's core vote .

You could also argue the same in the Tory Party when 90k Tory members elected a PM with a mandate that doesn't sit well with its historical support base .

When the city comes out and says Corbyn is the better of two evils then you know everything is fecked up .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

Don't be so stupid. It uses evidence given for and against a person and then makes a judgement. No judge would ever let a case go to court if the only evidence the prosecution had was they thought he was going to do something. It would rightly be scrapped before it got that far.

---

News to me that it's a judge who decides if cases go to court
Isn't it the CPS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

What then was your reason for copying & pasting,Just for the hell of it?
I think there was a reason which for some reason you wish to keep to yourself........pathetic. Come clean man

---

I was simply highlighting a contradiction It was your intervention that took it down a different route.

Read back on the exchanges. You first targetted me by jumping in to defend the incredible B I G. When more was revealed you went on the offensive against Biglad. I* was quite amused at how it escalated and left it to the two you.

But, the mist of time seem to have faded your memory. You now appear to forgotten why I re-posted the 'immigration quote'. You seem to imply there may be a hidden agenda as to why I did it.* I will remind you.

The relevant post is dated 17.09.19 at 9.44 pm where Biglad agrees with Kerr saying the reason he voted leave was that the EU lacked proper democratic processes and "I do not want to see my grandchildren called up to an EU army which is exactly the way it is going."

I highlighted the contradiction by saying he'd posted previously citing immigration as his main reason for voting leave (on 12.09.19).

You then made your intervention (read the exchanges between you and big lad from 17.09.19 at 10.22pm). The 2 of you doubted that he'd said it and (I assumed) implied I was being economical with the truth (Big lad stating "I may well have said that immigration was a factor but I do not think I said it was the main reason alone"). I then reposted the 'immigration quote' simply as a reminder as to what Biglad actually said (18.09.19 at 04.56am).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller

I was simply highlighting a contradiction It was your intervention that took it down a different route.

Read back on the exchanges. You first targetted me by jumping in to defend the incredible B I G. When more was revealed you went on the offensive against Biglad. I* was quite amused at how it escalated and left it to the two you.

But, the mist of time seem to have faded your memory. You now appear to forgotten why I re-posted the 'immigration quote'. You seem to imply there may be a hidden agenda as to why I did it.* I will remind you.

The relevant post is dated 17.09.19 at 9.44 pm where Biglad agrees with Kerr saying the reason he voted leave was that the EU lacked proper democratic processes and "I do not want to see my grandchildren called up to an EU army which is exactly the way it is going."

I highlighted the contradiction by saying he'd posted previously citing immigration as his main reason for voting leave (on 12.09.19).

You then made your intervention (read the exchanges between you and big lad from 17.09.19 at 10.22pm). The 2 of you doubted that he'd said it and (I assumed) implied I was being economical with the truth (Big lad stating "I may well have said that immigration was a factor but I do not think I said it was the main reason alone"). I then reposted the 'immigration quote' simply as a reminder as to what Biglad actually said (18.09.19 at 04.56am).

---

Do you not recall me actually telling BL that "I think he [WCM} has you on this one BL"
I still think the same in spite of BL's denial but you seem to think I was disagreeing with you
BTW BL was not agreeing with Kerr on his opinion but on his reason Kerr voted remain BL voted leave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

BL has at least had the balls to offer his opinion on the possible outcome but some clever dick has seen fit to call it laughable
What do you think will be the outcome or are you going to wait till they give their ruling & then give us all the benefit of your wisdom?
As usual you've said nothing that in any way could be construed as an opinion

---

See post 148 – page 23 - 17.9.19 7:57 PM

Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

It is a matter that is entirely for you if you want to keep making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

Ah Mr Kerr. Read your critique of Socialism now tell me why Capitalism does work. I'm all ears. How does capitalism work for the homeless, jobless, oppressed, poor. Just a thought... Give me some examples...

Indeed could it nor be argued that because there are people who are impoverished etc in the world through no fault of their own that capitalism does not work. No, hang on, I will take that back it does for a few...

---

I’m not sure that my critique of Socialism has much value when compared with the judgement upon it made by the millions who streamed out of the Socialism ravaged economies of Eastern European countries or who are abandoning Venezuela by the thousands every day. Then again, as someone far more cleaver than me once said: “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”

Capitalism works because it can reward individual endeavour and innovation as opposed to supressing the same. Market forces drive endeavour, efficiency and innovation at a corporate level, which is why the East Germans got Trabants, whilst Germans in the West got BMWs.

Your question about how Capitalism works for the homeless, jobless, oppressed and poor suggests that you don’t understand the issue. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation that history demonstrates works for the reasons that I have set out above. How the wealth created by the system is distributed is largely a matter for government. Towards one end of the spectrum you have the (Capitalist) Scandinavian countries that have large states and at the other end you have the US, which is focused upon having a much lower level of state intervention. Would the Scandinavians and Americans be better off in Socialist states? Ask a Venezuelan.

If you don’t create wealth, you can’t distribute it.

There are plenty of people who are impoverished in the world due to an unequal distribution of wealth, but before you start throwing stones at Capitalism, take a good look at the glass house that you are standing in. You could start by looking at your two cars or the meat in your fridge – they are there courtesy of the Capitalist economy in which you have the good fortune to live. If you want to actually do something instead of pontificating, why don’t you sell one of your cars (particularly as you told us that you barely use one) and give the proceeds to a good cause:

https://donate.unhcr.org/gb/venezuel...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

I know how the judicial system works so I do not need lecturing from you and as far as I know the law is the law, but the point I am making is how can 3 high court judges be wrong? Are you suggesting that they do not know the law and therefore are not fit for purpose?

Also the Scottish judicial system works in a different way than the English system works so in theory they could be both right! But if they return a vote against Boris it will look like the courts are deliberately moving in on political matters to either trespass on future rulings or to inhibit Brext or even both.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

---

We can’t be sure what Boris was thinking, because he has failed to provide evidence to the court. A cynic might well say that he has done that to avoid being prosecuted for perjury should evidence of an inconsistent explanation for his actions emerge in the future. That lack of evidence will undoubtedly be noted by the court who might well draw their own cynical conclusions from it

The government isn’t really arguing the case upon the basis of the reason for the proroguing; the thrust of their case is that the courts have no jurisdiction on the matter.