Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Wow, she must be really naive or ignorant to have agreed to go on that show. I wonder if she's ever even heard of Julia Hartley-Brewer?! Funny interview though, she was absolutely skewered!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knock out johnny said:

I think Sir John Knott walked out in the Falklands War

 

Oh, and it's Olney

He wasn't a new MP when that happened and had already said he was standing down at the next election so I guess he didn't give a sh1t any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheBlueCat said:

He wasn't a new MP when that happened and had already said he was standing down at the next election so I guess he didn't give a sh1t any more.

Yeah - I've just amended my original post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people who cant make their mind up on standards are easy meat for real interviewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thought this was quite funny

 

http://from-the-white-cliffs.co.uk/richmond-park-residents-demand-second-election/

Richmond Park residents demand second by-election

Posted on 3 December 2016

Richmond Park residents have demanded a second by-election over concerns that voters didn’t know what they were voting for, as well as for a number of other reasons.


A leap in the dark


38 year-old Richmond Park resident Emma Harding feels that the people have made the wrong decision and is worried by uncertainty:

“We knew what it was like to have Zac Goldsmith as MP, but we haven’t a clue what Sarah Olney will be like. Voting for Olney was a leap in the dark. There’s going to be a lot of uncertainty now that was totally avoidable.”

Harding acknowledged that there had been problems with Zac Goldsmith, but was adamant that these could have been overcome:

“OK Zac wasn’t great. There were lots of things that were wrong with him and he had stubbornly refused to change. Nevertheless, we should have carried on working to reform him.”

“A reformed Zac Goldsmith would have best served the interests of Richmond Park and the rest of the South East.”

Harding was clear on the need for a second by-election:

“I voted Goldsmith. We need another by-election so more people can vote for him too.”


People don’t understand their own interests


Meanwhile, 30-year old Richard Smith said that the vote suggested that the people of Richmond Park were ignorant and not to be trusted in such important matters:

“To be perfectly frank, the people around here are a bit thick. They all read newspapers and they believe everything they read. In some of those newspapers some people said they should vote Zac, so they thought they should.

“They’re too easily led.”

“What they need are experts. Richmond people can’t be expected to know what’s good for Richmond people! You need experts to tell them what’s good for them.”


A reasonable compromise


Smith felt that there needed to be a compromise:

“If you look at the ballot paper, there was no option that said ‘get rid of Zac’. People voted for Sarah Olney, they didn’t vote to get rid of Zac.”

“So what we need to do is have a compromise: we get Sarah, but we also keep Zac.”


John Major intervenes


Such has been the furore about the by-election that the conversation is now taking place at the national level.

This morning, former Tory Prime Minister John Major waded into the debate to express his anger at having discovered that the candidate with the most votes had won the by-election.

“We can’t have this – it’s the tyranny of the majority!”

“It’s unacceptable in a civilised country.”

“We demand a tyranny of the minority!”


Most people didn’t vote for Olney


Meanwhile, other people who felt there should be a tyranny of the majority were quick to point out that Olney hadn’t secured a majority of the vote. This was one of the concerns of 28-year old Charlotte Joy:

“If you look at the vote, she [Olney] only got 49.7%. When you take the low turnout into account, you find that just 25% of people voted for her. That isn’t a mandate! Who are you kidding?”


“They stole our future”


Meanwhile, 21-year old student Hannah Ingram was very upset because she had lost and she wasn’t used to losing. She and fellow losers that weren’t used to losing had gathered outside the Houses of Parliament in solidarity for Zac Goldsmith and to protest against the ignorance, prejudice and old people that had made them lose:

“If you look at the vote, it was dominated by old people. They basically made the decision.”

“Old people are going to kick the bucket soon, whereas we young people have long lives ahead of us.”

“Do you see that 10 year old over there? A 90-year old man had more of a say in his life than he has. I think that’s a disgrace. The old people are stealing our future and it has to stop!”

“The only acceptable solution is for the government to institute a rule whereby people’s votes are weighted by how much longer they’re probably going to live.”

“Only then will young people be able to decide.”


#WeAreThe45%


Many of those protesting against the result feel that the wishes of the 45% are being unjustly ignored in favour of those of the people on the winning side.

Such concerns are particularly acute in areas that didn’t vote for Olney.


A divided constituency


Nicholas Pike of Victoria Street is very angry because his street voted Zac Goldsmith, and no one seems to be making special arrangements for it:

 “62% of people on my street voted for Zac Goldsmith. My street did not vote for Sarah Olney.”

“Richmond Park cannot be allowed to frustrate the democratic will of the people of Victoria Street.”

“Therefore, we will be conducting independent talks with Zac Goldsmith to see if we can have a special arrangement with him whereby he continues to govern us after we’ve declared independence from Richmond Park.”

“Let me be clear: we’re going to put the interests of the people of Victoria Street first, even if that does end up meaning divorcing ourselves from Richmond Park.”

“But don’t worry, we will still be able to keep the red post box.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

thought this was quite funny

 

http://from-the-white-cliffs.co.uk/richmond-park-residents-demand-second-election/

Richmond Park residents demand second by-election

Posted on 3 December 2016

Richmond Park residents have demanded a second by-election over concerns that voters didn’t know what they were voting for, as well as for a number of other reasons.


A leap in the dark


38 year-old Richmond Park resident Emma Harding feels that the people have made the wrong decision and is worried by uncertainty:

“We knew what it was like to have Zac Goldsmith as MP, but we haven’t a clue what Sarah Olney will be like. Voting for Olney was a leap in the dark. There’s going to be a lot of uncertainty now that was totally avoidable.”

Harding acknowledged that there had been problems with Zac Goldsmith, but was adamant that these could have been overcome:

“OK Zac wasn’t great. There were lots of things that were wrong with him and he had stubbornly refused to change. Nevertheless, we should have carried on working to reform him.”

“A reformed Zac Goldsmith would have best served the interests of Richmond Park and the rest of the South East.”

Harding was clear on the need for a second by-election:

“I voted Goldsmith. We need another by-election so more people can vote for him too.”


People don’t understand their own interests


Meanwhile, 30-year old Richard Smith said that the vote suggested that the people of Richmond Park were ignorant and not to be trusted in such important matters:

“To be perfectly frank, the people around here are a bit thick. They all read newspapers and they believe everything they read. In some of those newspapers some people said they should vote Zac, so they thought they should.

“They’re too easily led.”

“What they need are experts. Richmond people can’t be expected to know what’s good for Richmond people! You need experts to tell them what’s good for them.”


A reasonable compromise


Smith felt that there needed to be a compromise:

“If you look at the ballot paper, there was no option that said ‘get rid of Zac’. People voted for Sarah Olney, they didn’t vote to get rid of Zac.”

“So what we need to do is have a compromise: we get Sarah, but we also keep Zac.”


John Major intervenes


Such has been the furore about the by-election that the conversation is now taking place at the national level.

This morning, former Tory Prime Minister John Major waded into the debate to express his anger at having discovered that the candidate with the most votes had won the by-election.

“We can’t have this – it’s the tyranny of the majority!”

“It’s unacceptable in a civilised country.”

“We demand a tyranny of the minority!”


Most people didn’t vote for Olney


Meanwhile, other people who felt there should be a tyranny of the majority were quick to point out that Olney hadn’t secured a majority of the vote. This was one of the concerns of 28-year old Charlotte Joy:

“If you look at the vote, she [Olney] only got 49.7%. When you take the low turnout into account, you find that just 25% of people voted for her. That isn’t a mandate! Who are you kidding?”


“They stole our future”


Meanwhile, 21-year old student Hannah Ingram was very upset because she had lost and she wasn’t used to losing. She and fellow losers that weren’t used to losing had gathered outside the Houses of Parliament in solidarity for Zac Goldsmith and to protest against the ignorance, prejudice and old people that had made them lose:

“If you look at the vote, it was dominated by old people. They basically made the decision.”

“Old people are going to kick the bucket soon, whereas we young people have long lives ahead of us.”

“Do you see that 10 year old over there? A 90-year old man had more of a say in his life than he has. I think that’s a disgrace. The old people are stealing our future and it has to stop!”

“The only acceptable solution is for the government to institute a rule whereby people’s votes are weighted by how much longer they’re probably going to live.”

“Only then will young people be able to decide.”


#WeAreThe45%


Many of those protesting against the result feel that the wishes of the 45% are being unjustly ignored in favour of those of the people on the winning side.

Such concerns are particularly acute in areas that didn’t vote for Olney.


A divided constituency


Nicholas Pike of Victoria Street is very angry because his street voted Zac Goldsmith, and no one seems to be making special arrangements for it:

 “62% of people on my street voted for Zac Goldsmith. My street did not vote for Sarah Olney.”

“Richmond Park cannot be allowed to frustrate the democratic will of the people of Victoria Street.”

“Therefore, we will be conducting independent talks with Zac Goldsmith to see if we can have a special arrangement with him whereby he continues to govern us after we’ve declared independence from Richmond Park.”

“Let me be clear: we’re going to put the interests of the people of Victoria Street first, even if that does end up meaning divorcing ourselves from Richmond Park.”

“But don’t worry, we will still be able to keep the red post box.”

Haha, awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheBlueCat said:

Haha, awesome!

It's not very original is it? Didn't take much creativity to search and replace EU with Richmond Park.

I wish I could find the possible death of democracy amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the gardener said:

It's not very original is it? Didn't take much creativity to search and replace EU with Richmond Park.

I wish I could find the possible death of democracy amusing.

Those 11 Supreme Court judges will keep democracy safe

 

p.s. any news from your QC cousin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

“To be perfectly frank, the people around here are a bit thick. They all read newspapers and they believe everything they read. In some of those newspapers some people said they should vote Zac, so they thought they should.

“They’re too easily led.”

“What they need are experts. Richmond people can’t be expected to know what’s good for Richmond people! You need experts to tell them what’s good for them.”

Sort of doesn't add up, they are too easily led so need experts to tell them how to vote!

The tyranny of the self-righteous knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

Wow, she must be really naive or ignorant to have agreed to go on that show. I wonder if she's ever even heard of Julia Hartley-Brewer?! Funny interview though, she was absolutely skewered!

The obvious answer was that the election will be rerun in 2020.  What could JHB have said then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, that's a wee bit embarrassing.

At least 20 years ago the most that would happen would be a few days worth of coverage in the papers and a brief ribbing on Have I Got News For You, and you could try and forget about it after that.

Nowadays though it's on the internet for ever and ever....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The obvious answer was that the election will be rerun in 2020.  What could JHB have said then?

Sure - there's a few other good comebacks she could have used too but that's not my point. Like it or not (and I'm not sure I do like it myself), any politician about to talk to the media needs to know exactly what they're going into in advance or they're going to get kebabed (as Neil Kinnock so brilliantly put it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ChewingGrass said:

Sort of doesn't add up, they are too easily led so need experts to tell them how to vote!

The tyranny of the self-righteous knows no bounds.

I think you'll find it's a joke... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did she call into Anjem O'Brien to get her wounds licked afterwards ? 

 

LBC's Twitter feed is full of people suggesting a switch to JHB on Talk Radio at 10am, when O'Brien starts his show. He'll lose even more now.

The Lib Dems have gone all in with Brexit. What have they to lose ? There's another bi election next week I believe. We shall see but I think this will hasten their demise.

It would also be interesting to see how the Lib Dems funded this campaign ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a trap, set by a foxy, big boobed, up for it woman ...

But she walked into FFS. A quick google would have revealed Julia's views.

Apparently she was not interested in politics until 18 months ago. Shes the most experienced LibDem at the mo ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

The obvious answer was that the election will be rerun in 2020.  What could JHB have said then?

Sorry, there's no comparison.  These second-voters aren't asking for a referendum to be held several years from now, after Brexit has been implemented and been in place for a while, to see what people think about it in practice.  They're calling for one very soon which they hope will render Brexit stillborn.  That's as unacceptable as the SNP attempt to sneak in a second indyref after the Brexit referendum but with any Scexit to be implemented before Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

Sorry, there's no comparison.  These second-voters aren't asking for a referendum to be held several years from now, after Brexit has been implemented and been in place for a while, to see what people think about it in practice.  They're calling for one very soon which they hope will render Brexit stillborn.  That's as unacceptable as the SNP attempt to sneak in a second indyref after the Brexit referendum but with any Scexit to be implemented before Brexit.

That's not really true.  So far the only explicit calls have been for a vote on the terms which would be 2 years from now.  In any case, it's completely reasonable to say that the people are free to change their minds after time for reflection.  We can't be hostages to the opinions of people on June 23rd when they were told Turkey was about to join and that £350m per week would be spent on the NHS instead of sent to Brussels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's not really true.  So far the only explicit calls have been for a vote on the terms which would be 2 years from now.  In any case, it's completely reasonable to say that the people are free to change their minds after time for reflection.  We can't be hostages to the opinions of people on June 23rd when they were told Turkey was about to join and that £350m per week would be spent on the NHS instead of sent to Brussels.

Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you'll invalidate every single elected government which does things differently to its manifesto.  And no, we don't have any kind of second election before the results of the first have been implemented.  Pursuing your analogy, it would be like Ornery having to submit to a second by-election before she'd even have a chance to take her seat.

The "reflection" in question should be on the implemented results of the election, not on whatever thought processes were going on in voters' heads on 23 June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Qetesuesi said:

Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you'll invalidate every single elected government which does things differently to its manifesto.  And no, we don't have any kind of second election before the results of the first have been implemented.  Pursuing your analogy, it would be like Ornery having to submit to a second by-election before she'd even have a chance to take her seat.

The "reflection" in question should be on the implemented results of the election, not on whatever thought processes were going on in voters' heads on 23 June.

It's already been nearly 6 months since the referendum.  Another 6 months of not much happening and it will be a year - a reasonable time to ask people again if they still want to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have a problem with voting on the terms, so long as the options are ....

Leave with a deal or Leave with no deal. Perhaps someone can dig up Noel to count the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snagger said:

I dont have a problem with voting on the terms, so long as the options are ....

Leave with a deal or Leave with no deal. Perhaps someone can dig up Noel to count the vote.

And a vote for don't leave cos the deal sucks donkey balls - which it invariably will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   101 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.