1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

But who WOULD be the next PM...??

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dangie, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    My favoured party is the epitome of intelligent government. Your favoured party is misguided. He or she or it belong to a party composed of nutters. :cool:
     
  2. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    I think the labour party is a much different party now to the one my mum and dad voted for all their lives for.........I just dont trust them...
     
  3. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Our previous MP Philip James Woolas lost his seat and position as minister and the ability to stand again, in an election court battle, because he had lied about his opponent during the election.

    He had also lied in parliament about the cost of Gurka settlement rights to the defence budget. an issue that Joanna Lumley made him look stupid over, in a broadcast on the BBC.
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  4. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Whatever I say....do....post...is not going to change anybodys opinion on this forum is it, sometimes its like being chased by a load of wolves.....some day we will be all together! :eek:
     
  5. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Did not somebody promise for votes that university fee's would be slashed or returned, my granddaughter is at uni at the mo, so all my family (not me) voted on this statement and then that party changed their mind......:mad:
     
  6. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Calling the Labour party by silly names is very childish. It suggests a lack of ability to debate on the part of the name caller, and also a lack of logical arguments to be made against the opponent. It is reminiscent of those university 'students' who shout down speakers who want to argue unpopular policies.
    You can do better than that. You have already done so in a later post in which you drew attention to Corbyn's lies about student fees. Labour can be demolished by logical argument and the use of appropriately chosen facts. Dissect their proposals on every issue where we disagree with them.

    Graeme you are making the same error as Ivor camera.
     
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing you're talking about this fiasco - "Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of rowing back on a promise he made on cancelling all student debt, despite not having ever made the supposed plege. The party’s manifesto pledged to scrap university tuition fees altogether, making him popular with young people despite criticism from other quarters. But the manifesto made no mention of an amnesty on existing debt to the Student Loans Company, which currently stands at £76bn." So you're guilty of your own charge and should take more care to deal with facts rather than fantasy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Any party that thinks it's a good idea to ignore 48% of the electorate is a party of nutters. Any party that thinks they can ignore 48% of the electorate when the other party in effectively a two party system is doing the same thing is a party of idiotic nutters.

    Anyone who thinks one party of nutters is better than the other party of nutters is in all likelihood a nutter themselves. I have never understood slavish attraction to any political party, as none have views I totally espouse. The best one can hope for is that the least bad party forms the government, which couldn't be the case right now with either party, they are both clearly idiotic nutters as above.
     
    Zou, Roger Hicks and Footloose like this.
  9. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member


    Learning , IMHO you are wasting your typing finger.


    Of course you are right but look at all the political threads on this forum. they all have the same characteristics. Here. in no particular order, are a few:


    1. Nobody ever changes their mind. In fact it's vanishingly rare for anyone to acknowledge that the other side even has a point.


    2. Anyone who fails to share the opinion of the writer is a fool, an idiot, terminally stupid, of unsound mind and unwashed (I made up the last one!).


    3. It's impossible to have an objective discussion about many issues - the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher is the most obvious one. Brexit another. I express no opinion about either (except that I'm a remainer) but I do accept that it's possible that other intelligent people can hold an opinion different from mine (see point 2 above).


    4. It's OK to denigrate the training, current knowledge, expertise, research of a contributor who has spent a lifetime doing something - but at the same time expect to be taken seriously on an issue one might have been exposed to a lifetime ago.


    I could go on but will leave you to complete the list. It's why I try (very hard) to avoid expressing a political opinion even if I post in a political thread.


    Meanwhile I'm with Mr Flannigan;



    MickLL
     
  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mike,

    Well, yes, but to quote Marx, "every class acts in its own class interests". Surely very few who are NOT economics and marketing professors share your opinion of their shining worth. In fact, I'd suggest that most hold the exact opposite opinion of the skills of economics and marketing professors. And saying that the government is on your side is hardly likely to attract more to your viewpoint. As Frances said, "It's not exactly a recommendation."

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Zou likes this.
  11. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    QED

    MickLL
     
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  12. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    It seems to me that there is only one appropriate comment to all this talk about 'nutter parties'.............TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE

    Lynn
     
  13. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    But this is no different to life in general, Mick.

    How often have you converted someone to your point of view (on a political topic)? Or been converted to someone else's point of view? For me, rarely - if ever. But that doesn't stop discussion - nor should it.

    If we're not free to air our views on here, then the forum might just as well close down.
     
  14. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Most photographers are artists and most artists are very emotional and tend to be left wing. Left wing policies tend to appeal to the touchy feelly emotions of the left. There is nothing wrong about that. That tendancy is a useful counter to those of us who are part of the post enlightenment technocratic 'aspby aspergers' set. This is a photographic forum. The only reason I can think of for it being so middle of the road is that most of us, myself included, are a bunch of old farts.
     
  15. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Nope... they never changed their mind. They just never had the seats to enforce it.
     
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Plus quite a few of us seem to be members of that "post enlightenment technocratic 'aspby aspergers' set" - self included.
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  17. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    At risk of rendering your analysis a little flawed, I would point out that I spent an entire career in heavy engineering. I'm also 'of the left', as you put it. Perhaps your somewhat stereotypical theory is in need of a little additional work.
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  18. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Yes, stereotypical theory is always flawed. In this case there are likely to be many contributors who don't fit my pattern. However the stereotype fits more often than it fails.This was particularly evident at University. Leftist demonstrations were largely supported by humanities students while the scientists and technologists did some real work.
     
  19. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Imagine....a flawed argument! Whatever next!

    Graeme
     
  20. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I'm afraid that you may have missed my point. I'm not complaining about disagreement or about folk airing their views. I enjoy reading such posts especially if they are well argued.

    I agree that it's rare that (even in the real world) someone completely changes their mind but it's not rare to accept that the 'opponent' might have a point but that you disagree with it because........

    My job and my time in education brought me into contact with many folk who held very different views from mine. We frequently had fierce discussions but never, not once, was I accused of being "a nutter", "hard of thinking", "greedy", "racist" or had any other insult fired at me. Equally I never used that sort of language in return.

    I could go on but I need to leave for an appointment soon. I hope that I've clarified my opinion. I'm all in favour of discussion even (as one of the mods puts it) robust discussion. I'm just against rudeness and disrespect and that happens all too often on this forum. It's why I commented to Learning that he was wasting his typing finger!


    MickLL
     

Share This Page