General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

@Sir Tarmo Kink

They are the only democratic party (Brexit Party aside) in the UK, yes.

[jamamafegan]

They are the only democratic party (Brexit Party aside) in the UK, yes.

That still doesn’t answer my question.

Do you think that kind of behaviour is democratic?

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

That still doesn’t answer my question.

Do you think that kind of behaviour is democratic?

Not sure if I’m being whooshed here but none of that behaviour can be termed ‘democratic’ or ‘undemocratic’. It’s just simply poor behaviour. The list of politicians with poor behaviour is a long list, across all parties.

The only big party willing to deliver on the democratic wish of the public is the Tories. Am I right or wrong?

[BFTD]

9 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Found this little gem -

Thatcher pushed for breakup of welfare state despite NHS pledge

Yes, I remember. I was alive during the 1980s.

Edited December 10, 2019 by BigFatTabbyDave
Lack of quote

[jamamafegan]

Not sure if I’m being whooshed here but none of that behaviour can be termed ‘democratic’ or ‘undemocratic’. It’s just simply poor behaviour. The list of politicians with poor behaviour is a long list, across all parties.

The only big party willing to deliver on the democratic wish of the public is the Tories. Am I right or wrong?

I disagree. I would definitely say that deliberately misleading the public through misinformation and outright lies is undemocratic behaviour.

Also, you’re wrong. Labour are offering a sensible, democratic vote on Brexit. And of course, the SNP are offering the option of independence to escape Brexit - which is the overwhelming will of the Scottish people.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

I disagree. I would definitely say that deliberately misleading the public through misinformation and outright lies is undemocratic behaviour.

Also, you’re wrong. Labour are offering a sensible, democratic vote on Brexit. And of course, the SNP are offering the option of independence to escape Brexit - which is the overwhelming will of the Scottish people.

Labour are offering to ignore the vote of the original referendum, ruling everyone’s vote as null and void simply because they cannot accept the result that was voted for.

The SNP are campaigning using the slogan ‘STOP BREXIT’ which is entirely undemocratic. ‘Independence to escape Brexit’ is not the overwhelming will of the Scottish people.

[DAFC.]

I’m still voting SNP, but the STOP BREXIT logo is total guff. Like it or lump it, the UK votedto Leave and it would be undemocratic to stop that from happening.

The red lines for me are independence and trident. There is no way I could support a party that wants to renew nuclear weapons on my front door. You know, if voting Labour up here might have helped get rid of the Tories I might have considered it. But it won’t, so f**k them, and the horse they rode in on.

[Sunrise]

 

[jamamafegan]

The Stop Brexit slogan is clearly linked to independence. You vote for the SNP, you support a second referendum, you vote independence you stop Brexit.

[BawWatchin]

2 hours ago, Sir Tarmo Kink said:

There is no ‘democratic mandate’ for indyref2

Ah, the usual tory tactic of "if I ignore it, I can pretend it didn't happen".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/scottish-parliament-votes-for-second-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon

[Miguel Sanchez]

3 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

The Stop Brexit slogan is clearly linked to independence. You vote for the SNP, you support a second referendum, you vote independence you stop Brexit.

You support Rangers, you vote Tory. 

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

No, this time it's not a matter of opinion. It's not whether you're for a bit more or less public spending, or a bit more or less tax. It's not about centralising or regionalising services. It's not about policy at all.

It's about the Prime Minister being a racist c**t who calls black people pickanninies, compares burkas to letter boxes and, this week, called every person in this country who wasn't born here a freeloader. People are going to be abused and attacked in the street as a direct result of that comment. It's happened before.

The idea that people who have lived here longer than I've been alive, have worked here and raised their families here have any less right to permanently live here on an equal basis with anyone else than you or I do is utterly despicable. Anyone who holds that view is scum. I'm absolutely happy to stand by that and if that's a view you hold, I regard you as scum. I sincerely hope you don't, though.

Then there's the insults to single mothers (like Johnson hasn't created enough of them), women, gay people, Scots, Scousers… do I really have to go on?

Johnson is the first Prime Minister in more than a century who can be described as unfit for office. He's so bad that John Major and Chris Patten aren't even going to vote Conservative. Look behind the polls and you see a fundamental realignment has taken place - for the first time, people with university degrees are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative. The Tories are doing better among the working class than the middle class, while Labour are only slightly better among the working class than the middle class. The key difference now isn't your economic circumstances, it's how much of a p***k you are.

I have two friends who have been Conservative candidates in the past. One was a full time election agent in England for many years. Neither would dream of voting Tory now, they consider the party beneath contempt.

So no, this isn't about political opinions. This is about the degree to which someone is a decent human being. And for the first election in my lifetime, I'm judging very hard anyone who votes Conservative. Right now it's not much better than voting BNP.

Ah right, so in your "enlightened" view if you are working class you are a "p***k". Charming, I guess. 

Tell me did you actually read these articles or did you just get your angry reaction feeding off the outrage of others. 

Don't get me wrong it has taken me till today to get round to it, but in the Telegraph article about the burqa I do actually agree with what he said. He said that the burqa was a religious symbol of oppression and that he felt it was perfectly right that if someone attended his surgery that they should remove face coverings to talk to him. He also felt that the same should apply to schools and universities. Now before you start attacking me as a racist, here's why. My parents were both deaf. They relied all their life on lipreading for their communication. As I have gotten older I too have lost a degree of my hearing, If someone covers their mouth when talking to me, or worse stands to my side and shouts or whispers in my ear I haven't the foggiest idea what they have said to me. If I can see their face and can lipread them then I stand a far better chance of being able to communicate. Communication for me - and for hundreds of thousands of others across the country - is a mixture of being able to hear and being able to lip read and see facial expressions. 

So yes, if I was involved in a meeting with someone wearing a burqa I too would have to ask them to remove their face covering, or else quite simply I would not be able to follow what is being said. That's not to say that they can't wear it, just that if they want me to understand them and to be able to converse with them they would need to remove their face covering. 

To me that is perfectly reasonable. There were various complaints put in about the language he used in the article comparing the burqa to pillar boxes and to bank robbers. All of the complaints watchdogs found he had not used offensive language, but instead had used satire to illustrate his point. I wouldn't have used the same terminology as I'm sure others wouldn't have either however in terms of the general point he was making I believe it was fair enough. 

What became absurd about this article though was the over the top response to it, including a claim that islamaphobia had risen as a direct result of this article by 370%. Really? All these Telegraph readers read a Boris Johnson opinion piece and went out on a racist rampage? I severely doubt it. What I do think would be more likely is that some knuckle dragging idiots who lack the ability to read will have seen it being re-reported that Boris Johnson had caused offense and they have then gone out and committed these stupid attacks. I suspect that they - like you - had not read the article in full and were instead reacting to other peoples outrage and ramping it up some more - as you have done by comparing voting for a mainstream political party with plenty of black MP's as being "not much better than the BNP"! 

 

 

 

 

[Donathan]

If the Tories do decently in Scotland (Say, retain 10+ of the 13 seats they hold and maybe gain Lanark & Hamilton East as well) and the UK-wide party get an overall majority, look for a gammoned-up Ruthbot 2.0 to come riding back in to the political scene. She's already laying the groundwork for a run as Tory party leader after Boris.

[carpetmonster]

Malky - on the assumption Johnson doesn't have issues with hearing, there is no reason for anyone to remove a facial covering. I understand your point as I lived with a guy who was born to hearing parents but had lost his own hearing in his teenage years, and he became a very good lip reader to facilitate those around him. If Boris Johnson has good hearing - and we have no reason to think that he doesn't - your argument only holds up if doesn't own a radio.

[Malky3]

8 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Do you think they'd welcome her? If their vote holds up even without being the Ruth Davidson for a Strong No Surrender party, why reward leaving a position of leadership? Auld Carlaw is somehow hanging on despite knives being out for him already, you get the feeling there's a few folk with eyes on the top Tory MSP job.

I'd welcome her. A far better political leader than ANY of the mainstream leaders today. She'd wipe the foor with the rest of them down at Westminster. 

[carpetmonster]

Shiting it and then making up lies about why you've shat it are excellent leadership traits, agreed.

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Malky - on the assumption Johnson doesn't have issues with hearing, there is no reason for anyone to remove a facial covering. I understand your point as I lived with a guy who was born to hearing parents but had lost his own hearing in his teenage years, and he became a very good lip reader to facilitate those around him. If Boris Johnson has good hearing - and we have no reason to think that he doesn't - your argument only holds up if doesn't own a radio.

You've no reason to assume he does either. But does that matter. It's a simple point of respect. 

Another example - in my house I ask everyone who visits to remove their shoes. It's not a religious thing, I just don't want them trailing mud all over my carpets and flooring. If they refuse they won't get in - simple really. Now I understand that the same rules apply at a mosque. If Boris Johnson was to visit one he too would be asked to remove his shoes. Should he get all offended? Would there be outrage? Or would we all, and I suspect we really would, just expect that Johnson should follow their rules as a matter of respect for his hosts. 

So why should a request to remove your face covering before commencing a meeting be more controversial? Why would it be racist? And why should this opinion stop someone from being Prime Minister - good, bad or indifferent? 

 

[carpetmonster]

If it didn't matter, why write screeds of nonsense in an attempt to defend it?

 

Your house is your house. You are perfectly entitled to deny anyone entry for whatever reason you wish. The office of a constituency MP is taxpayer funded space and someone has as much right to wear what they like in there as they do on the street.

[JamieThomas]

 

Spoiler

 

[Malky3]

3 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

If it didn't matter, why write screeds of nonsense in an attempt to defend it?

Your house is your house. You are perfectly entitled to deny anyone entry for whatever reason you wish. The office of a constituency MP is taxpayer funded space and someone has as much right to wear what they like in there as they do on the street.

It wasn't nonsense. I made my point about the art of communication and how important it can be for some people to be able to see lips and facial expression to understand what is being said to them. You've made a presumption that Johnson has perfect hearing. I don't see how you could possibly make that conclusion. Even so, I see absolutely nothing wrong in someone making a polite request that the face coverings be removed before a meeting or a conversation commences and if that request is refused then I'd defend the right of the other person to refuse to continue. It's not racist, it's simply a matter of mutual respect.