Question Time Commentary

Dan Carden: Highlights

Following his election to the House of Commons, Carden and his supporters celebrated in a Liverpool pub called "The Grapes". The pub's landlady claimed that the group were screaming, shouting, chanting, and standing on the furniture, and barred Carden and some of his friends from ever entering the pub again.[10] Carden denied the allegations
I remember 'The Grapes' fondly from the days of my misspent youth. It's a nice watering hole and does not deserve the kind of riff-raff to which the landlady took umbrage. And it takes quite a lot to get barred from a Liverpool pub, i can tell you.

OZ
 
I have long held the view that decisions on issues of the magnitude of Scottish independence or BREXIT should not hinge on a simple majority where, theoretically, a small but temporary protest mindset or even a drunk student putting his cross in the wrong box, could result in a permanent and irreversible change in our national circumstances. The determining middle ground is fickle and shifts far too easily and too frequently to be reliable. Many US states require a two-thirds majority to pass significant initiatives for precisely this reason.

I still think the unexpected success of Labour in the last general election had more to do with a protest vote to shock or punish the current government than any massive support for Corbyn; I imagine many people were surprised to find that their votes had actually affected the outcome. The same principle applied to the BREXIT referendum.

It was therefore refreshing to hear Alan Johnson saying on last night's 'This Week' (with the tacit agreement of Michael Portillo) that even the British Legion requires a 60% majority to sanction important changes to the status quo, and that we had broken with historical constitutional precedent by not requiring the unanimous agreement of all four constituents of the UK to approve the BREXIT referendum.

What say others?
Where I digress a smidge, is if say 52% express disgust with the status quo, then its commensurate on the leadership to not simply recognise and redouble the education for the plebs to understand their betters. But, for the leadership to actually adjust and change to reflect the mood.

I suspect if the rising euroscepticism had been reflected in government policy, we would have likely not voted out. By ignoring the plebs until you reach some magic number tends to create a polarised position.
 
I have long held the view that decisions on issues of the magnitude of Scottish independence or BREXIT should not hinge on a simple majority where, theoretically, a small but temporary protest mindset or even a drunk student putting his cross in the wrong box, could result in a permanent and irreversible change in our national circumstances. The determining middle ground is fickle and shifts far too easily and too frequently to be reliable. Many US states require a two-thirds majority to pass significant initiatives for precisely this reason.

I still think the unexpected success of Labour in the last general election had more to do with a protest vote to shock or punish the current government than any massive support for Corbyn; I imagine many people were surprised to find that their votes had actually affected the outcome. The same principle applied to the BREXIT referendum.

It was therefore refreshing to hear Alan Johnson saying on last night's 'This Week' (with the tacit agreement of Michael Portillo) that even the British Legion requires a 60% majority to sanction important changes to the status quo, and that we had broken with historical constitutional precedent by not requiring the unanimous agreement of all four constituents of the UK to approve the BREXIT referendum.

What say others?
The original common market majority was 34.5% therefore by British Legion standards we should never have gone in in the first place.
Happy to have a second referendum with a 60% majority to overturn the existing decision.



I voted against the original entry in 1975 and have seen no reason to change that decision..

Enoch Powell
Never again by the necessity of an axiom, will an Englishman live for his country or die for his country: The country for which people live and die was obsolete and we have abolished it. Or not quite yet. No, not yet. The referendum is not a “verdict” after which the prisoner is hanged forthwith. It is no more than provisional … This will be so as long Parliament can alter or undo whatever that or any other Parliament has done. Hence those Golden words in the Government's Referendum pamphlet: “Our continued membership would depend on the continuing assent of Parliament”.’
 
Last edited:
I have long held the view that decisions on issues of the magnitude of Scottish independence or BREXIT should not hinge on a simple majority where, theoretically, a small but temporary protest mindset or even a drunk student putting his cross in the wrong box, could result in a permanent and irreversible change in our national circumstances. The determining middle ground is fickle and shifts far too easily and too frequently to be reliable. Many US states require a two-thirds majority to pass significant initiatives for precisely this reason.

I still think the unexpected success of Labour in the last general election had more to do with a protest vote to shock or punish the current government than any massive support for Corbyn; I imagine many people were surprised to find that their votes had actually affected the outcome. The same principle applied to the BREXIT referendum.

It was therefore refreshing to hear Alan Johnson saying on last night's 'This Week' (with the tacit agreement of Michael Portillo) that even the British Legion requires a 60% majority to sanction important changes to the status quo, and that we had broken with historical constitutional precedent by not requiring the unanimous agreement of all four constituents of the UK to approve the BREXIT referendum.

What say others?
I actually disagree. You're not wrong, but at a large scale, errors tend to neutral. The referendum was never likely to be a unanimous result. The countries are too different.

Like it or not, requiring a substantial pro-change advantage over the status quo, will only serve to stifle progress.
 
Anand Menon wrote up a decent summary of his own position with a respectful opinion of the leave minded audience at the end of the piece.

Why are people cheering for no deal? Because they’re thinking about it the wrong way Anand Menon
The remain side desperately need more like him. Nothing could stiffen the resolve of Brexiters more than being patted on the head and being told to 'run along and do as you're told' by the likes of Heseltine, Blair, Carney, Cameron and Clarke.
 
The remain side desperately need more like him. Nothing could stiffen the resolve of Brexiters more than being patted on the head and being told to 'run along and do as you're told' by the likes of Heseltine, Blair, Carney, Cameron and Clarke.
Yes, but there is so much more than short-term fears. As for Carney he said if - possible - maybe - limited - might. The BBC said would - would - will - must - would
 
An excellent QT. I think FB chaired it well.
She controlled the debate and gave the audience a fair say.
Take note dimmers, that's how it should have been done.
 
I have long held the view that decisions on issues of the magnitude of Scottish independence or BREXIT should not hinge on a simple majority where, theoretically, a small but temporary protest mindset or even a drunk student putting his cross in the wrong box, could result in a permanent and irreversible change in our national circumstances. The determining middle ground is fickle and shifts far too easily and too frequently to be reliable. Many US states require a two-thirds majority to pass significant initiatives for precisely this reason.

I still think the unexpected success of Labour in the last general election had more to do with a protest vote to shock or punish the current government than any massive support for Corbyn; I imagine many people were surprised to find that their votes had actually affected the outcome. The same principle applied to the BREXIT referendum.

It was therefore refreshing to hear Alan Johnson saying on last night's 'This Week' (with the tacit agreement of Michael Portillo) that even the British Legion requires a 60% majority to sanction important changes to the status quo, and that we had broken with historical constitutional precedent by not requiring the unanimous agreement of all four constituents of the UK to approve the BREXIT referendum.

What say others?
On paper that's fine but I'm buggered if I'm standing for the bulk of the population being held hostage by a comparative fistful of chippy, hate-fuelled Sweaties!!
 
On paper that's fine but I'm buggered if I'm standing for the bulk of the population being held hostage by a comparative fistful of chippy, hate-fuelled Sweaties!!
Who for the most part couldn't give a flying f*** about the rest of the UK. So long as they get what they want.
 
I stopped watching QT ages ago when it turned into a Lefty love fest, with a blindingly obvious left wing audience and utter berks of 'comedians' spouting crap.

I was very pleased to watch last nights show, where Fiona Bruce interrupted anyone talking dross and also 'politely' forced them to answer the question at hand and not let them bimble off for 5 minutes with party political crap that Dimbleby used to allow.
 
I stopped watching QT ages ago when it turned into a Lefty love fest, with a blindingly obvious left wing audience and utter berks of 'comedians' spouting crap.

I was very pleased to watch last nights show, where Fiona Bruce interrupted anyone talking dross and also 'politely' forced them to answer the question at hand and not let them bimble off for 5 minutes with party political crap that Dimbleby used to allow.
So she can expect her P45 in the post soon then?
 
Hilarious. The frothing left just can't help themselves but swallow Carden's assertions as fact without any counterpoint or knowledge/consideration of any actual evidence. I note that it was fine and dandy when Tory members of the panel were laughed at by the audience and put down by Dimbers Now the boot is, for once, on the other foot (allegedly) they don't like it!

Soft yoghurt-knitting brainwashed spunktrumpets, one and all.
 
Have not watched QT for years .... I may tempted to start watching again .... partly because Abbott was most dischuffed at her treatment last night .... Labour MP’s spokesperson claims she was mocked and interrupted more than other panellists ..... full article linky ....
Diane Abbott accuses BBC Question Time of legitimising racism
... on a cold Winter's night I felt a warm glow inside when I read the article .
 
Last edited:
The only reason Abbott is now a figure of fun is entirely down to.............












...........Dianne Abbott.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Glad_its_all_over US 10
J The Training Wing 77
dombo63 Shooting, Hunting and Fishing 50

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top