Jenny1

Good bye Robbin. Wishing you well.

It's what I thought I read Robbin. If you really want me to trawl back and find the post I will, but it seems a bit pointless. You've just said yourself that you do sometimes manage bank-related work. I can appreciate that this doesn't make you the Head Honcho of Goldman Sachs. To be honest I think it's less offensive to call someone 'a manager in banking' than 'Trumpesque'. But it's probably best that we don't clog this thread up with chat, but leave it free for those who want to talk 'Brexit'.

You said you were a manager in banking Robbin. From what you've just said that meant that you sometimes manage banking-related projects. But I'm sure you can see why the distinction wouldn't have been immediately obvious. If you regard the organisations I mentioned above as 'scaremongers' then I feel sure we would never agree on anything. As to foils to mis-statements. Don't worry. There are plenty of people here who are happy to pick each other up on inaccuracies and will continue to do so.

Well Robbin, people can, of course, have any view they like. But I will always speak out when arguments are made that discount the common good. You said you'd voted 'Remain', worked in a senior job in banking, but thought that 'No Deal' would be fine. You were quite happy to discount the views of the CBI, Bank of England, Trade Unions and BMA that 'No Deal' would be deeply damaging. I could only assume that you would be financially secure in any eventuality - and were not much concerned about what happened to other people.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think I'm going to leave > you to it, now I know your true colours... I think that's a super idea. But seriously. You seem very emotionally affected by the vote last night. I'm surprised by that. Surely there are only two sorts of people who would find it distressing. First there are those who have a financial interest in 'No Deal' (ie they've taken a major punt on a falling pound). Secondly there are the ideologically driven Brexiters who don't understand that their beloved 'tight timetable' has been one of the major factors scuppering their project. I know you voted 'Remain', so find it odd. I doubt you're really interested in examining the moral and past criminal records of everyone in the Commons....but we can go through them one by one if you like.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JohnL Wrote: > > > --------------------------------------------- > As one broadcaster said yesterday this is what > it's like to live through history and it's not > nice. Exactly so.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > robbin Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > What a surprise nil for ten now! > > Yep - all that 'whittling' is working well. Good afternoon Robbin. I'm afraid I'm not up with all the modern terms the 'young people' use. What does 'nil for ten' mean? But perhaps it would be fruitful to look at the current situation more broadly, thinking back across our lifetimes, what comparable political events have required cross-party collaboration and compromise to the degree that's now being attempted? I'm in my early fifties, you are, I suspect younger, but don't let that stop you having a go. Think back and see what you can come up with. Having done that, then evaluate how you would rate the approach currently being adopted by MPs in an effort to break the deadlock over a sensible way forward. OK. That gives you some psrspective. Now I'd like you to answer a specific question: What elements would you, Robbin, add to this process, to make it work better? (Bearing in mind, I'm sorry it needs stating overtly, but it really does, that your aim is the well being of the population of this country). I note you are particularly disparaging about Yvette Cooper. Why is that? Can you give examples of policies she's pursued that make her (in your view) 'desperate'. Are you one of the people above who doesn't know why Y2K wasn't, in the end. problematic? Surely not.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > --------------------------------------- > > The vote will be for the commons to take the > lead > > now and what amendments > > . > > Hmm, that worked out well, didn't it?!!! > Yes. It did work well. Thank goodness. Last Monday's vote allowed the options to be whittled down. The top three or four will come back for further debate and votes on Monday and perhaps also Wednesday next week. It would have been great if a similar process, looking at all available options, had been initiated years ago - rather than May's 'stifle all debate' approach. For preference I would have had something broader and more elaborate , including Citizens Assemblies to research and offer input, but given where we are now, this approach is good enough and injects some much needed light and air into the situation.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the government has rejected the petition but it > will still be debated on April 1st. Is this a > joke? I think it's the government that's the joke. I got those standard email responses too Alan Medic, but didn't take them too seriously. The petition is having an effect where it needs to - on all MPs who now have to focus on working together, across parties, to come up with a way forward.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/vote-leave- > director-admits-won-lied-public/08/02/?fbclid=IwAR > 3dVW9PvsGCy4u1gAjg7io6_XbRd9J3yOnym3HhJF9x3SMzLfjn > yrdD8xs > > > So the "Vote Leave" director admits that they won > because they lied to the public. > > What with that and the apparently illegal > funding/spending issues, I can't understand why > the result of the referendum isn't being declared > void. > > ETA: An extract: > > And so to the damning paragraph that outs the > Leave Campaign for what it was: > > Pundits and MPs kept saying ?why isn?t Leave > arguing about the economy and living standards?. > They did not realise that for millions of people, > ?350m/NHS was about the economy and living > standards ? that?s why it was so effective. It was > clearly the most effective argument not only with > the crucial swing fifth but with almost every > demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was > level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won > without immigration? No. Would we have won without > ?350m/NHS? All our research and the close result > strongly suggests No. Would we have won by > spending our time talking about trade and the > Single Market? No way. Exactly Sue. Vote Leave have been clear that they knew very well at the time of the referendum that they couldn't win if they put forward a concrete proposal of what 'Leave' meant. So instead they needed to 'massage the figures' (to be polite about it - I'd call it 'lie to the public' ) in order to have a hope in hell. That's why we're in the mess we are now. I read the comments of Roland Smith on Twitter and would thoroughly recommend following him. He's a former prominent 'leaver' who now favours revoking Article 50. He's really interesting on how there has never been a thought-through plan from the 'Leave' side about how to enact 'Leaving' in a way that would convince the public that it was a good idea. He wrote a long thread about it. A few years back they even had a competition to come up with a plan and couldn't find one!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Grand Wizards - really. The group who went to > Chequers call themselves that. No wonder it was > all men. > > Laura K just dropped it on twitter last night like > an afterthought - both 'KKK' and 'Grand Wizards' > trending within an hour and she's back 'oh I > didn't check my twitter - I seem to have started > something' Yes. And it's clear that Michael Gove (one of the aforementioned 'Grand Wizards', and one of the most likely sources for the fact the 'Chequers Boys' call themselves that) knows exactly what the term means. See below from 2016. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/michael-gove-criticised-kkk-black-lives-matter-joke/

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > civilservant Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > prof still's calculations are based on static > > crowds. > > for those who have been on these marches, it's > > really interesting to see the rate of flow > > > > these are dynamic crowds, > > in the old days, marchers converged on a > central > > point and then stood around to hear speeches > > but no longer - the new style marchers turn out > to > > be counted and then leave, making way for more > > people to flow into the space they have left - > > otherwise the numbers could never be > accommodated > > in central london > > > > the other interesting thing is how peaceful > they > > are, these marches - no pushing, shoving or > gilets > > jaunes, minimal police presence and not a > broken > > window in sight > > > Yep. > > We were with a group of people (including Helen > Hayes) who joined the march at Green Park (he > park, not the tube station) having started at > Victoria. > > There was a bottleneck of people trying to get out > of Green Park into Piccadilly. > > We got down to the screen in the Mall but couldn't > get much further due to the crowds, so never got > as far as Parliament Square. > > And yes, there was no trouble at all, it was a > really good natured and lovely day, we met some > lovely people, including people who had come a > really long way (felt a bit bad we just had quite > a short journey there!) I felt bad about that too. But I'm jolly glad I went!

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I fear it won't be so peaceful though if the will > of the majority is ignored and the promises to > carry out the referendum result are broken. > Careful what you wish for! I think panic about this is over-played. Just because Teresa May has spent the past two and a half years attempting to brainwash the country into believing that a 'full suicide' Brexit is the only way to honour a narrow majority in an advisory referendum offering no concrete vision of 'Leave', doesn't mean that anyone believes her. MPs are now, thank the Lord, taking some kind of initiative to examine the many options available. My question is : since it was obvious the day after the referendum that such a collaborative, cross-party approach was needed to work out a sensible way forward, why couldn't the government see that? I think we all know that's because their main concern was keeping hold of power, not what was best for the county.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 11.9 million to go... Your humour at work there again I see Robbin. This petition is having a powerful lobbying effect. Thank God for that.

I can thoroughly recommend Dave (the cooker repair man). He's just mended my 20 year old cooker for a very reasonable price. Great not to have to shell out for a new one. It also feels good to be repairing something rather than scrapping it. A really nice guy too. 07506 104882.

DulwichFox Wrote: --------------------------------------------- > Are we going to have a second General Election if > some people dont get their way. > How many General Elections have there been in the course of your lifetime DF?

There is no reason at all why we have to have TM's WA or No Deal. There are many other options out there. MPs just need to lift their eyes up from the gutter - where both of those options lie - and start looking for a new way forward. Even if we get a new rampant ERG PM fighting a GE on a 'No Deal' platform in the next two weeks that fact doesn't change.

I don't think the WA is in our interests JohnL https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/23/may-s-brexit-deal-is-a-humiliation-for-britain

They're behaving as if they need to be led though, aren't they? Not as if they understand that they must now do the leading. They still, understandably, behave as if the Prime Minister is running this process. That's what I mean about disabusing themselves of the idea that she's the one with the answers.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fine - to be pedantic. > > politicians are public servants. Yes. Politicians are public servants, but not civil servants. Sorry if I sound pedantic, but I think it's a really important distinction. Civil servants are very different from MPs.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > collaborate - behave in a grown up manner - be > able to make decisions - put the people first - > not bicker and debase themselves - be transparent > - provide full and clear facts - do not tell lies > - do not commit to something they cannot deliver > > and so on. > > > basic stuff really It's the politicians who've not done that though, isn't it? Not the civil servants.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She needs to be removed. > > Is the No. 10 cat still about? I hear it's been spotted in talks with David Lidington.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just about another 15 million to go... I detect your sardonic sense of humour at work here. Because I'm sure you know it's not sensible to compare apples with oranges, and that you understand the wider lobbying value of such a well-supported petition at a time when the most important thing is to focus MP's minds on the fact that there are many and varied options out there, that the public is aware of this, that it's their duty to start considering all the potential paths forward. They need to disabuse themselves of the quaint notion that Teresa May has all the answers (or indeed any answers).

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > really? you really think they have been behaving > as they should given the office they hold? Yes. What have they done wrong in your view?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This whole debacle has clearly demonstrated that > our civil servants (yes - remember their mission > being to serve the electorate?) are unfit to do > their job. > I agree with your other criticisms, but not this one. I haven't seen any evidence that the civil service has not been doing it's job. Also, do remember the HoL has pretty limited powers. The main problem is Corbyn and May and their collective disrespect for Parliament.