It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Traitors will attempt to bring down UK government next week

page: 66
37
<< 63  64  65    67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
See how Unions need more than 50% of their electorate to vote on any matter before it counts


It's because Trad Unions in the past have demonstrated that a small minority of members can cause untold industrial harm when there is no transparent process.

Turnout in all UK General Elections over the last one hundred years has been above 50%. Contrast that with the sham of the EU elections where barely 30% turn out in the UK - indicating one of the many democratic deficits of the EU. It's not just the UK either - the European electorate don't give a turdlington or EU elections, which is possibly why the EU Parliament is stuffed with in-breds, nepotism and groupthink.




posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

Contrast that with the sham of the EU elections where barely 30% turn out in the UK - indicating one of the many democratic deficits of the EU. It's not just the UK either - the European electorate don't give a turdlington or EU elections, which is possibly why the EU Parliament is stuffed with in-breds, nepotism and groupthink.



Jobs for the boys.


Yet another indication of the undemocracy of the EU..... a closed shop



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

That was a fantastic summary of Corbyn's performance and his blatant lack of understanding of fiscal and economic issues.

Same as you I'm far from being an expert but the gaps and failings in his knowledge were laid bare for even economic simpletons like myself to see so glaringly.

I've never liked the man but the more I read and see of him the more amazed I am that anyone can even consider allowing him become Prime Minister of this country and why The Labour Party ever thought they had a hope in hell of winning this election with him as their leader.

It's a truly shocking state of affairs when the opposition of the most morally defunct government this country has had for a long time is even more unelectable than those disgracing that position and office now.


edit on 28/11/19 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn


I have often wondered what qualifies anyone to become chancellor of

the exchequer?

A job any qualified accountant might be hesitant at the enormity of the

task! A position of keeping the country solvent and using taxpayers money

to the best advantage.


And yet (I havent checked it out) I dont believe we have ever had a

qualified person in that position in at least the last 100 years (or ever)

You could say the UK, as a business (the biggest in the UK?) and no

qualified accountant/economist at the helm. Who would run ANY

business on those lines?


They would not need to be a voted in MP (better if they weren't) just a

bloody good accountant to keep the PM's in line telling them what was

and what wasn't possible.


An after thought......

Please God never let Diane Abbott and her calculator become chancellor.




edit on 28-11-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

thanks , thats pretty crazy that they impose one rule for trade unions and not the same rule for the general public who also in a small minority can cause untold damage , like say 10 years of tory austerity

however in this case I am wrong,

voter turn out looks like its always been over 50% for the last 5 general elections

Uk voter turnout at elections


Between 1922 and 1997, turnout at UK general elections remained above 71%, rising to over 80% in the general elections of 1950 and 1951. Turnout was only 57.2% in the 1918 General Election, although this was partly due to a low service vote and a large number of uncontested seats (107 out of a total of 707 seats).

In 2001, turnout fell to 59.4%, its lowest level since 1918 and down 12% points compared with 1997. Although turnout rose again in 2005-2010, it was still below its 1997 level. In 2017 UK turnout was 66.8%, and turnout in each of the countries of the UK was below the 1918-2017 average for the UK, which was 72.9%.



You know I thought it was a small number of people 17.4 million that voted for brexit , out of the total Uk population , is that not correct
Im confusing the general elections with the bloody referendum thats why.

edit on 28-11-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2019 by sapien82 because: edit cus im an eejit



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: Freeborn


I have often wondered what qualifies anyone to become chancellor of

the exchequer?

A job any qualified accountant might be hesitant at the enormity of the

task! A position of keeping the country solvent and using taxpayers money

to the best advantage.


And yet (I havent checked it out) I dont believe we have ever had a

qualified person in that position in at least the last 100 years (or ever)

You could say the UK, as a business (the biggest in the UK?) and no

qualified accountant/economist at the helm. Who would run ANY

business on those lines?


They would not need to be a voted in MP (better if they weren't) just a

bloody good accountant to keep the PM's in line telling them what was

and what wasn't possible.


An after thought......

Please God never let Diane Abbott and her calculator become chancellor.





Norman Lamont has a degree in economics and he was a disaster as Chancellor.



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
speaking of qualified people in politics ,

Mr Robert Rowland of the brexit party recently asked Molly scott Cato for empirical evidence of the result of brexit

She is a professor of economics

but look

he asks for evidence a normal question, he then through his own personal incredulity doesnt believe she can answer
or isnt qualified. Molly then goes onto argue from a position of authority without referencing any evidence.
One logical fallacy after another.

So even though we have a professor in the EU green party , she still cant argue from a logical stand point.

these are the eejits in the EU


edit on 28-11-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
I was having a smoke outside the pub last night - yes I know, but I am having a night in tonight....I think - and guess who walked passed me? My local MP.
She quite cheerfully smiled and said hello to which I replied in kind.

I let her go about her business free from any impromptu interrogation or ranting from me.
In some ways I regret that now.

She has been an excellent constituency MP and I actually have a certain degree of respect and admiration for her.
My problems with her are her anti-Brexit stance - in contrast to the clear pro-Brexit views of her constituents - and her being a Labour MP under Corbyn's leadership and Momentum control.

In her defence she has always been open about her Remainer beliefs and no-one could ever accuse her of being a Corbynista.

But I just can't bring myself to vote for her for the reasons given above.

Was this a missed opportunity to voice what many friends and associates also feel or was I right to let her go about her business free from any sort confrontation no matter of how respectful it would have been?


With the eloquence and unbiased views you present here......missed opportunity


Rainbows
Jane



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: Freeborn


I have often wondered what qualifies anyone to become chancellor of

the exchequer?

A job any qualified accountant might be hesitant at the enormity of the

task! A position of keeping the country solvent and using taxpayers money

to the best advantage.


And yet (I havent checked it out) I dont believe we have ever had a

qualified person in that position in at least the last 100 years (or ever)

You could say the UK, as a business (the biggest in the UK?) and no

qualified accountant/economist at the helm. Who would run ANY

business on those lines?


They would not need to be a voted in MP (better if they weren't) just a

bloody good accountant to keep the PM's in line telling them what was

and what wasn't possible.


An after thought......

Please God never let Diane Abbott and her calculator become chancellor.





To most people's dismay, I have only ever voted twice in any election in my 57 years.
First time was for a man that I believed was PM material. The second time was because same man was leader of his party and would have won the GE at the time if it wasn't for the election system we have.

I decided not to vote a very long time ago when I studied for a certificate in British Constitution.
I have always held this 'random' belief that members of the public should not stand as MP's. I have this 'dream' that only accountants/bankers/insurance workers should stand for positions regarding handling our economy.
People who are in our armed forces/security forces should stand for the Foreign/Defence Office.
People employed in the medical profession should only be allowed to stand for our health department.......you get the picture by now. No party politics involved, just people who have experience in each sector that governs our country....vote for the person best equipped....not the party

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
voter turn out looks like its always been over 50% for the last 5 general elections


Voter turnout in the UK General Elections has been over 50% since 1918 and women's suffrage.

Voter turnout at the EU Referendum was 72%. More than half of those who turned out voted to leave. It's convention to assume those who did not vote would have voted in proportion to those who did. The higher the turnout provides greater assurance of a representative vote.

The problem with low turnout at elections e.g. EU elections, is that low participation leads to unequal participation. People who vote in the EU elections want (you could assume) the EU to exist, and by default we end up with a skewed EU Parliament which is not representative. That means democracy is flawed. One of the central issues raised in the Brexit debate was the flawed nature of the EU democracy, in that it is not representative.

I use the EU as an example, but if participation in the UK fell below 50% then alarm bells should ring all over the Electoral Commission. What is worrying with the EU is that they do not attempt to address the democratic deficit, as that would disadvantage or risk disrupting the current centres of power.



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Norman Lamont has a degree in economics and he was a disaster as Chancellor.



That is a matter of opinion!!


Norman Lamont was a very good chancellor of the exchequer and, probably, among the best qualified at the beginning of his tenure. As he reminds us, he was the only person ever to have held the three offices of financial secretary, chief secretary and chancellor, and he spent seven consecutive years at the Treasury. He was bold, consistent and innovative with a passion for radical reform.

A firm Eurosceptic Lamont’s judgement on the single currency to that of Kenneth Clarke. Lamont rightly says that it is “the most important constitutional issue to face Britain since it first joined the Community in 1973”, and that ultimately the euro “would lead to the creation of a European government and state”. I have never understood why Ken Clarke maintains that the single currency is simply an economic reform without serious constitutional implications for Britain’s sovereignty. You cannot abolish your national currency and allow major economic decisions to be taken collectively by majority vote without that seriously eroding your country’s independence.
By Malcolm Rifkind

www.newstatesman.com...


And he didn't sell of our gold reserves when the price was at the lowest!!



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia



Please God never let Diane Abbott and her calculator become chancellor.


I'd be amazed if Diane Abbott knew how to turn a calculator on let alone use one.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Norman Lamont has a degree in economics and he was a disaster as Chancellor.



That is a matter of opinion!!


Norman Lamont was a very good chancellor of the exchequer and, probably, among the best qualified at the beginning of his tenure. As he reminds us, he was the only person ever to have held the three offices of financial secretary, chief secretary and chancellor, and he spent seven consecutive years at the Treasury. He was bold, consistent and innovative with a passion for radical reform.

A firm Eurosceptic Lamont’s judgement on the single currency to that of Kenneth Clarke. Lamont rightly says that it is “the most important constitutional issue to face Britain since it first joined the Community in 1973”, and that ultimately the euro “would lead to the creation of a European government and state”. I have never understood why Ken Clarke maintains that the single currency is simply an economic reform without serious constitutional implications for Britain’s sovereignty. You cannot abolish your national currency and allow major economic decisions to be taken collectively by majority vote without that seriously eroding your country’s independence.
By Malcolm Rifkind

www.newstatesman.com...


And he didn't sell of our gold reserves when the price was at the lowest!!








Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?

The 91/92 recession?

The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)

Or just black wednesday itself?



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Norman Lamont has a degree in economics and he was a disaster as Chancellor.



That is a matter of opinion!!


Norman Lamont was a very good chancellor of the exchequer and, probably, among the best qualified at the beginning of his tenure. As he reminds us, he was the only person ever to have held the three offices of financial secretary, chief secretary and chancellor, and he spent seven consecutive years at the Treasury. He was bold, consistent and innovative with a passion for radical reform.

A firm Eurosceptic Lamont’s judgement on the single currency to that of Kenneth Clarke. Lamont rightly says that it is “the most important constitutional issue to face Britain since it first joined the Community in 1973”, and that ultimately the euro “would lead to the creation of a European government and state”. I have never understood why Ken Clarke maintains that the single currency is simply an economic reform without serious constitutional implications for Britain’s sovereignty. You cannot abolish your national currency and allow major economic decisions to be taken collectively by majority vote without that seriously eroding your country’s independence.
By Malcolm Rifkind

www.newstatesman.com...


And he didn't sell of our gold reserves when the price was at the lowest!!








Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?

The 91/92 recession?

The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)

Or just black wednesday itself?


ETA : Just to be fair I actually agree with his statement about the Euro.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: eletheia



Please God never let Diane Abbott and her calculator become chancellor.


I'd be amazed if Diane Abbott knew how to turn a calculator on let alone use one.



hahah she knows how to spell 80085



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?
The 91/92 recession?
The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)
Or just black wednesday itself?



Seems like 'recessions' are like climate changes they come and go, perhaps its

how they are handled? No one seems to blame Gordon Brown for the last one.....

The one that is responsible for the current recession? austerity?


(Edit to correct re Sceptic Scot)



edit on 29-11-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?
The 91/92 recession?
The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)
Or just black wednesday itself?



Seems like 'recessions' are like climate changes they come and go, perhaps its

how they are handled? No one seems to blame Gordon Brown for the last one.....

The one that is responsible for the current recession?





And like climate change we can make it a lot worse, like pegging the pound at a artificially high rate.

Quite a lot of people blame Brown despite his handling of the financial crises being one of his best decisions.

And we aren't currently in a recession ,least not yet.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?
The 91/92 recession?
The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)
Or just black wednesday itself?



Seems like 'recessions' are like climate changes they come and go, perhaps its

how they are handled? No one seems to blame Gordon Brown for the last one.....

The one that is responsible for the current recession?





And like climate change we can make it a lot worse, like pegging the pound at a artificially high rate.

Quite a lot of people blame Brown despite his handling of the financial crises being one of his best decisions.

And we aren't currently in a recession ,least not yet.


Yes we get it.

The tories are to blame for everything.
Yawn.
Please post another anti tory meme from your momentum playlist.

So i can yawn again.
Zzzzzz



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Wonder what bit they think made him a very good chancellor?
The 91/92 recession?
The spending of reserves to keep us in the ERM ( way more than Brown's losses on the gold sale)
Or just black wednesday itself?



Seems like 'recessions' are like climate changes they come and go, perhaps its

how they are handled? No one seems to blame Gordon Brown for the last one.....

The one that is responsible for the current recession?





And like climate change we can make it a lot worse, like pegging the pound at a artificially high rate.

Quite a lot of people blame Brown despite his handling of the financial crises being one of his best decisions.

And we aren't currently in a recession ,least not yet.


Yes we get it.

The tories are to blame for everything.
Yawn.
Please post another anti tory meme from your momentum playlist.

So i can yawn again.
Zzzzzz


Can you link to a single occasion I have posted a meme of any type?

Are possibly confusing me with another poster, do all us Scots look the same to you or something...



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Are possibly confusing me with another poster, do all us Scots look the same to you or something...



The rhetoric is so similar you couldn't get a cigarette paper between.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 63  64  65    67  68 >>

log in

join