The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

she's an irrelevance to this debate  , why would she get an invite ?

She's the leader of the third largest party and one of the only people willing to represent 48% of the electorate.

What's the point of having a debate about a subject between 2 people that want the same thing?

Besides, I said I'd be interested if she was, not that there was any obligation to invite her.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Davkaus

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

She's the leader of the third largest party and one of the only people willing to represent 48% of the electorate.

What's the point of having a debate about a subject between 2 people that want the same thing?

Besides, I said I'd be interested if she was, not that there was any obligation to invite her.

It was more that Scotland does as it's told and doesn't have any say in the matter  rather than her position 

aren't the Lib Dems  remain ?

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by tonyh29

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

aren't the Lib Dems  remain ?

 

Never heard of 'em. 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

she's an irrelevance to this debate  , why would she get an invite ?

Possibly she is. But she shouldn't be, nor should the First Minister of Wales. It seems wrong to me that the devolved parliaments have been completely ignored and sidelined in all this. The whole approach from the tories and May has been "What I say" no consultation, no attempt at consensus, no attempt to actually deal with the differing and disparate views of different parts of the UK. It's another example of control freakery, and it's been hugely counter productive.

[Chindie]

This debate is **** stupid.

[ml1dch]

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

This debate is **** stupid.

It wouldn't be a bad idea if they had three or four speakers from across the spectrum, and had rigorous fact-checking on all speakers to ensure that nobody was doing a Boris.

But most importantly, travelled back in time and held it around two years ago.

[Seat68]

I can see it being on the BBC with John Humphreys, Andrew Marr and Andrew Neil carrying out hosting duties.

[ml1dch]

56 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I was of the impression it's Corbyn / Labour that have been pushing for the TV debate  , as they know she is weak in this area ... which gave her 2 options  ... run and hide like last time , or take the bait and hope that the coaching she has presumably been having pays off

I don't know which side suggested it. I'm amazed either one wants to do it as Corbyn is pretty hopeless on the detail of this particular topic.

It's basically going to be an hour of him not understanding the difference between the Customs Union and the Single Market while repeatedly offering something that isn't on offer, and her repeating back at him "only deal that protects the economy and delivers on the referendum" like a broken speak your weight machine.

It'll probably be the worst hour of television ever. 

[Chindie]

Supposedly one of the ideas for the debate is to have a panel with a range of views asking questions.

Which will be a shitshow. Especially when the May sycophant asks something like 'Prime Minister, would you agree that this deal is a most glorious deal that only you could attain, and that the country would benefit from any deal you pulled out of your most worshipful arse, especially as this deal will stop dirty foreigners stealing our women, our jobs and blowing up our children, which Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party have wet dreams about?'.

Completely pointless disaster of an idea.

[StefanAVFC]

Well, there we are. I'm convinced. I'm a leaver now.

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness, are these people really this stupid? Or are they producing figures without context because it supports their argument and thick people aren't able to analyse them?

Edited November 29, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Well, there we are. I'm convinced. I'm a leaver now.

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness, are these people really still stupid? Or are they producing figures without context because it supports their argument and thick people aren't able to analyse them?

He's better at the Welsh National Anthem than he is at maths

EDIT: That tweet almost deserves a "I didn't vote to remain because of the economics, it was point of principle based on Free Movement" etc. play them at their own game

[Chindie]

The Member of Parliament for Mordor is an idiot.

[Xann]

18 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Or are they producing figures without context because it supports their argument and thick people aren't able to analyse them?

Correct.

Now he's shitting it because his dimwit cause has lost momentum.

If we don't leave? His investments will take a hammering cos he's banked on the UK economy tanking after Brexit.

[ml1dch]

44 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Well, there we are. I'm convinced. I'm a leaver now.

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness, are these people really this stupid? Or are they producing figures without context because it supports their argument and thick people aren't able to analyse them?

In other news, I had growth of nearly six feet between the years 1983 and 2001, but minimal growth since then. So I'm leaving my wife and children and moving back in with my parents as that's clearly the decisive thing that triggers growth.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

In other news, I had growth of nearly six feet between the years 1983 and 2001, but minimal growth since then. So I'm leaving my wife and children and moving back in with my parents as that's clearly the decisive thing that triggers growth.

That's half of the context.

Also

if you start with 100 and after 10 years you have 218, that's 118% growth. If after another 10 years, you have 368, that's only 69% growth. So really, you're better off in the first 10 years.

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

That's half of the context.

Also

if you start with 100 and after 10 years you have 218, that's 118% growth. If after another 10 years, you have 368, that's only 69% growth. So really, you're better off in the first 10 years.

Not to mention the 20+ year gap in the middle

[peterms]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Well, there we are. I'm convinced. I'm a leaver now.

In all seriousness, are these people really this stupid? Or are they producing figures without context because it supports their argument and thick people aren't able to analyse them?

Perhaps what the Mekon should have said was

"Between 1948 and 1972 when we had an approach to government that was interventionist, an active programme of nationalisation and the creation of a strong welfare state and a health service that was the envy of the world, with strong trade unions and a sense of social responsibility, growth amounted to 118%.  From 1993 to 2017, when the narrow-minded, vicious and economically ignorant programme of self-interest and destruction of the social fabric and asset-stripping the nation's wealth had become entrenched, a programme which was the responsibility of my mentor Thatcher and her successors, directed by right-wing think tanks and enthusiastically promoted by self-serving little shits like myself, growth was just 69%.  It is impossible to restore the lives I have ruined or repair the damage I have wreaked, but in a small act of contrition and justified self-abasement, I shall retire from public life and spend the rest of my life in a cave, repenting my sins."

[peterms]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

He's better at the Welsh National Anthem than he is at maths

 

Lest we forget.

 

 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

His investments will take a hammering cos he's banked on the UK economy tanking after Brexit.

Good job we can trust the major players on the other side of the argument to never do something like that.

 

[StefanAVFC]

And now we're at Soros