Jump to content

How dare Bliar -


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

As if this snake oil salesmen didn't do enough damage when in office as PM;  seems he's now got the arrogance to suggest a counter-Brexit movement, to over-turn the referendum decision.   Still, he's so detested by the majority of folk, that he will hopefully unite opposition to himself.    

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man is only interested in a ticket to the EU gravy train to bolster his already great wealth & to try &  rescue his image as a world politician. He should be reminded of his so called socialist agenda & banished to Iraq to tend a flock of goats ad infinitum & to reflect on the damage he has helped to inflict on the whole middle east.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments being concocted by Bliar have no credibility: first of all, he's saying that the British public were "misled" by the Leave Campaign; where a balanced view would suggest both sides were economical with the truth, whatever truth there is in a speculative argument. But he conveniently forgets his misleading of the British public over Saddam's WMDs, which didn't exist and his folly cost thousands of lives. Second: the inference is of course, that the British public are thick, how arrogant is that ? Then of course, there's the arrogant assumption that he can change minds, when polls are showing an increasing number of people are now of the opinion that we should just get on with Brexit. Then there's the Scottish straw to grab, as if an Independent Scotland will stand any chance of joining the EU, when they will be vetoed by Spain (due to the Catalonia issue) and there economic position is dire. Perhaps he should retire to wash the blood off his hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter which of the political parties get into power the public are misled. It is part and parcel of politicians to mislead the public so that they vote for them.

 

Did note that a few of the MEP's interviewed recently had faces that looked like a smacked rear end, definitely unhappy that the "British public have the gall to put them out of a cushy job". One would not even look at the camera and dashed past with a decidedly angry look on his face when asked a question about his future in politics.

 

Blair can change minds, he doe sit all the time, unfortunately he does not seem to change the right ones, as i noted in my earlier post, anything he supports will almost automatically get the people going against it. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Mandy Mandleson jumps on the Bliar bandwagon by suggesting that folk will turn against Brexit when they realise it won't stem immigration.  Slight problem with that analysis Mandy; in order to realise it won't stem immigration we have to be out, thus beyond the point of no return. We already know that EU migrants only contribute 50% of the total, so control over 50%.  We also know, that the majority of "illegals" are entering via the EU, so Brexit facilitates control over both. Plus, NOT signing up to any future trade treaties that involve "free movement of labour".  All we have to worry about then, is bleeding heart liberals inviting every poor "refugee" (actually economic chancers) through our borders and giving an amnesty to those that are already here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A member of the House of Lords....a person who denies they do it for the money.

Be fair they claim that they do not get a wage for it so in effect are volunteers so their denial has some basis in truth. The fact that if they sign in for fifty two weeks of the year on a five day week they can get £75,000, plus free drinks and food is just perk. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, that these politicians have  vested interest in the current archaic and corrupt status quo - turkeys don't vote for Xmas.  But any objective assessment would suggest that radical pruning could produce savings of over  £80 million pa; by simply halving the number of MPs  and  reducing the Lords to 100 elected  from a Party list system, proportionate to votes at a General Election - sorted.   The UK has the highest number of politicians per capita in the world, with a system that is no longer fit for purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cross bench peers are the most useful people in Parliament. Making them all elected as you suggest would give Peers the same mandate as the Commons and the same whip. We would then get the same intolerant populist sort of legislation that gave us the prospect of ID cards and the rest. Just because some of the Lords have the audacity to be Tories does not mean we should stop the Lords being an effective revising chamber and turn it into the lapdog of the Commons.

 

In addition when you look at how many government members are needed to run round after civil servants you pretty much need as many MPs as we will have after the next boundary review to keep things going. Democracy isn't cheap, but if you don't want dictatorship you must pay the price for democracy.

 

If your fact about the number of legislators came from the Economist you should note that it is in part because we control a great deal from the centre in the UK and miss out the state/regional layer in the whole of England where most of the population live. As an example the Economist figure for the US only includes Federal legislators whilst the UK parliament handles matters that would be dealt with by State legislatures with extra politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw in your  argument is precisely that it is NOT  democratic, as it  is appointed NOT elected.  So, if you believe in democracy, you have to support an elected chamber. By using a Party list system,  representation would be broadened beyond that permitted by the first past the post system for MPs; so similar to MEPs,  thus recognising a broad range of political opinion, and in fact more "representative" than the Commons (which is what the Commons are afraid of).. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observer, I don't think that slavishly following the line you espouse is right. Like I said the crossbench peers are effective which stems from them being appointed for their experience and often wisdom. I believe in democracy all right, but it can be improved by dumping referendums and stopping the kind of winner takes all behaviour that might reduce the effectiveness of the revising chamber.

 

The problem with what you suggest is that the group with the balance of power has a great deal of control and it would normally be a non-mainstream party or single issue group, like the SNP (which so damaged the 2015 outcome). Being representative is not what really matters to the average person, it is only really important to a few activists. Most people want effective government that make things better where possible and tries to not let them get worse; sorry but the country is mostly not full of left or right wing zealots but is mostly pragmatists who just want a predictable life.

 

As I understand it what the Commons are really afraid of is that the other house could have the apparent authority to overrule the Parliament Act and totally bring down a money bill thereby, bringing government to a halt. That would be a possible outcome of what you propose and why it is not a sound plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, you really are confused52:  with all the arrogance of a "we know what's best for you" Remoaner.   The whole essence of democracy is that it is representative of majority opinion, hence the need for regular elections, at which "popular" opinion usually succeeds. Dictatorships are actually                   the best argument for the "we know what's best for you" Brigade, as they avoid popular challenge.  An extension of my suggestion for a "Senate", would be that it could form an executive branch of Government, as distinct from the legislature (Commons); and we could start to form a system worthy of the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, you really are confused52:  with all the arrogance of a "we know what's best for you" Remoaner.   The whole essence of democracy is that it is representative of majority opinion, hence the need for regular elections, at which "popular" opinion usually succeeds. Dictatorships are actually                   the best argument for the "we know what's best for you" Brigade, as they avoid popular challenge.  An extension of my suggestion for a "Senate", would be that it could form an executive branch of Government, as distinct from the legislature (Commons); and we could start to form a system worthy of the 21st century.

 

Oh dear indeed. I object to ALL referendums on principle.  We have a representative democracy in which Parliament is sovereign, NOT the public through a referendum. That is why ALL referendums have always been advisory, which was recently confirmed by the Supreme court in its judgement I believe. Our representatives vote with their own conscience as do the Lords, your definition of democracy is just not what this country uses and I am not convinced it needs to change. Your previous posts have made no mention of a "Senate" but this is usually just another name for the revising chamber in democracies I know of.

 

The idea of the "Senate" being part of the executive is the antithesis of the British notion of an independent Civil Service and takes you to the American model of a politically led executive that must change to maintain allegiance with an incoming president. At its worst it gives us the nonsense we see between the Obama and Trump Administrations, Your idea could give us an executive controlled by one party using the lists and PR which the legislature is controlled by FPTP, the classic recipe for gridlock.

 

There is one case where the executive is chosen in a way that allows the elected government(s) to have a different complexion to the politically appointed (on different cycles) members of the executive and that is the European Commission which in practice is often at loggerheads with the European Council of Member States and the European Parliament. Sometimes you do surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you'll find that Parliament out-sourced the decision on Leave or Remain to the people,  when they agreed to Referendum in the first place.  The US model  was  specifically designed to provide checks and balances within the three main arms of Governance, thus avoiding the possibility of a monopoly of power. Not sure where the "civil service" comes into it, they exist to facilitate  and execute the will of the people as represented by the elected politicians. The EU is controlled by the Council of Ministers, with each Nation having powers of veto, albeit much reduced; thus making the EP largely window dressing; so no comparisons there.  There are two main factors for politics to consider in representational terms, one is policy, as displayed by various Party Manifestos and the other is local interest, as accounted for with constituency representation. So any system needs to take account of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundementals are  dealt with by the  CoM,  and even their policies are apparently overridden . EG:  Frau Merkel's unilateral invite to over a million "illegal" migrants to walk to Germany, in contravention of the EU Dublin Convention. The EP remains an expensive talking shop, dealing with such vitals as straight bananas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you are wrong, the EP are a real power in the passage of many pieces of legislation and cause the Member States lots of problems. You appear to be well out of date, Frau Merkel acted within her powers as German Chancellor, you don't have to like it. The Dublin convention in that case applied to Greece who were delinquent as a result of their financial woes.

 

The outline of legislation is drawn up by the Commission not the Council of Ministers, that is one of Farage's battle cries. The Council of Ministers make comments and propose a draft and so does the EP. If there is no consensus then it goes to trialogue and if time runs out the legislation falls unless the next commission picks it up again. The problem recently has been that fringe parties get together with their mates from other countries to cause a lack of agreement. Member States can get a veto back on matters where the Commission agrees the latest draft is significantly contrary to the original intention but the UK seemed scared to do that for some reason.

 

I don't think that you would like what you would find much if you studied what really happens but it is not really like most of what we hear in the press in the UK. I will probably respond again on this subject only if you comment beyond the Daily Mail version of EU analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you need to visit your atlas: Germany has no common border with Greece; so Merkel's invite involved these "illegals" entering other States en route, over which Merkel has no jurisdiction. She then tried to offload them throughout the rest of the EU, but was knocked back. Now that Germany has copped for the lot, she's changed her tune, and now wants them repatriated. But this episode merely demonstrates who's really pulling the strings in the EU. As for Greece, like Italy and Spain; they've failed in their EU obligations under the Dublin Agreement, demonstrating it's chaotic nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...