Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:



Can't help but notice how you're fiddling those percentages in your favour. Probably rounding up and rounding, to square that round hole and make them match up.

I prefer hard facts.

16,141,241 people voted Remain.
17,410,742 people voted Leave.

Those numbers are not identical no matter how much you try to spin it.

Within statistical uncertainty it is effectively and it is better to view that we had third equally between stay, leave, don't know or care enough to vote. The exact figures are 34%, 37%, 29%. 1.3m is really not a large number overall. The numbers aren't really conclusiveness to say either way. If you want to play with numbers...There are approximately 2m people in the country that were denied a vote, EU citizens (many that had been here a long time and to note will be entitled to vote once we leave according to May's plans). There are 1.5m UK citizens living in the EU and a lot were denied a vote. There are about 1.4m 16-18 year olds (half of which are now entitled to vote) that were denied a vote. Even excluding those that didn't vote there are large numbers of votes that were excluded that could have easily swayed the result to being more decisive one way or another.

Of the people who chose not to vote, I care not. They should have voted if they wanted their voices to be counted.

Is that really the attitude though. Our government and parliament are there to represent everyone whether they voted or not. Discounting them simply because they didn't vote is not a reason to then subsequently ignore them. People are entitled to be represented even if they didn't tick a box. If you stop caring about other people then they are likely to stop caring about you just as much. You might learn to regret that in time if the populace as a whole becomes more selfish because of it.

The fact that you're keen to assume they're "fine" with the status quo just shows your bias. I don't assume anything about what they think and neither should you.

Actually we can make a few assumptions and a hypothesis simply based on human nature. We don't generally tend to act on things if we are comfortable for example (a classic example is changing banks/energy companies) even if it is worthwhile doing something, it's just not enough to make us do so. We are intrinsically lazy like this. However those that get a 'bee under the bonnet' are indeed likely to take more proactive action (e.g. vote). Therefore I am comfortable in assuming that the non-voters are likely to be dominated by those who are happy with the status quo (students could easily fall in this category). As such when push comes to shove it is likely that they are more supportive of the remaining than leaving as that is simply staying 'as is' (or there are not enough reasons or arguments to actually make those people think a change is worthwhile). It is more likely that the leave vote captured a significant amount of those anti-EU because this was there chance. Therefore that third could quite easily be near the glass ceiling of the leave vote and the remain vote simply didn't get enough people out on the day (perhaps thinking the status quo would remain).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Put it this way: If Remain had won the Referendum, but afterwards the EU used that as an excuse and began pushing hard for complete integration and the forfeiture of our few remaining Opt-Outs and public opinion subsequently turned against the EU and back in favour of Leave...would YOU agree to a 2nd Referendum?

(Thats rhetorical btw, of course you wouldn't).

I have no fear of this. We should not consider ourselves 'special' in any way. The reality is referendums are a bad way of making decisions as complicated as this. We don't have this type of democracy (else all decisions should be held this way). What in effect we have potentially started is a referendum every 5 years or so just to check because otherwise the next generation never get their say and are rolled into a direction they neither want or asked for.

I'd argue that if we voted to remain and the mood changed to leave, then the democratic thing to do would be another referendum.

I also don't think referring to the will of the people is an underhand way to subvert the will of the people. I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.

Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....

Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).

Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.

The party is getting older with lower membership. These guys might not have gotten there by being any good; just being better than the rest of the dregs.

Herzlos wrote:
I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.

Which is how I view demands for a 2nd Referendum. If we were ever going to have a 2nd Referendum, then that should have been agreed upon from the very start, not demanded after the fact. Its moving the goal posts.

Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?

Bloodshed.

I view Brexit as potentially our last chance to secede from the EU and retain our national independence. One day, if we wait too long, we'll be too closely integrated that we will no longer be able to leave without resorting to force.

You don't even know what people voted for. You had "status quo" versus "something else". That's not how you make a proper vote. It's a joke.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't even know what people voted for. You had "status quo" versus "something else". That's not how you make a proper vote. It's a joke.

It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?

Herzlos wrote:
I'd argue that if we voted to remain and the mood changed to leave, then the democratic thing to do would be another referendum.

I also don't think referring to the will of the people is an underhand way to subvert the will of the people. I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.

Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....

Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).

Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.

The party is getting older with lower membership. These guys might not have gotten there by being any good; just being better than the rest of the dregs.

She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?

I'll admit I would. But then I'd question any vote where the win was so narrow because margin of error. Particularly when the winner then acts as though it were an overwhelming mandate.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?

Sure, because it wouldn't have resulted in this political no man's land situation. Things would have just kept going as before.

Imagine if you had gone to the same vacation spot for the last 20 years (it's your family's favourite hotel near the beach or something like that). A few weeks before your next trip you suddenly have a vote for the next vacation (because a few days before that grandpa wanted to win the vote that decided what new car to get). Half of the people like going to the same spot as before and the other half want something new.

If the "same old vacation" side had won nothing would have changed and you could have done the same you do every year (and even planned a different vacation for next year with enough time and thought) and just relaxed on the beach for now but if the "new experience" side won (meaning: Brexit) you now have to decide, rearrange, and book everything in a really short amount of time. That's a bit of added stress for everyone (in addition to the displeasure of the side that just wanted to go to to the same hotel and relax there).

Brexit is a haphazardly put together "new vacation" that created a lot of unneeded uncertain and stress in a relatively short time frame for those people. Why would they complain if things had just stayed the same? They didn't want the ambiguously defined referendum in the first place.

 jhe90 wrote:

She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.

She seems adequately competent where she is now. I'd give her a junior ministerial portfolio and see how that goes before making any further judgements though. Being able to deliver a good brusque speech that doesn't make you seem like a posh Tory is a great asset, as is being able to hold your own in a political debate/the media ring (as she's shown with Sturgeon) and keep the local party in line. Being actually competent at administration/inventing policy though? Different kettle of a fish altogether. Blair was great at all the former, yet sucked at the latter, and how is he remembered, eh?

No, I'd say she's proven herself competent in some specific fields, but it in no way implies capability in the others. She may well be a future leader to watch for a decade from now (certainly, she appears a better prospect than sodding Priti Patel and miles ahead of Leadsom) but she's still green with little actual governing experience. She needs to get some of that under her belt before she can start playing with the heavyweights.That is however, precisely why I'd approve of her heading south and taking a portfolio or two; because it'll let me form a better of judgement of whether she's all bark and no bite or not.

 Ketara wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.

She seems adequately competent where she is now. I'd give her a junior ministerial portfolio and see how that goes before making any further judgements though. Being able to deliver a good brusque speech that doesn't make you seem like a posh Tory is a great asset, as is being able to hold your own in a political debate/the media ring (as she's shown with Sturgeon) and keep the local party in line. Being actually competent at administration/inventing policy though? Different kettle of a fish altogether. Blair was great at all the former, yet sucked at the latter, and how is he remembered, eh?

No, I'd say she's proven herself competent in some specific fields, but it in no way implies capability in the others. She may well be a future leader to watch for a decade from now (certainly, she appears a better prospect than sodding Priti Patel and miles ahead of Leadsom) but she's still green with little actual governing experience. She needs to get some of that under her belt before she can start playing with the heavyweights.That is however, precisely why I'd approve of her heading south and taking a portfolio or two; because it'll let me form a better of judgement of whether she's all bark and no bite or not.

She seemed to handle a very difficult situation well, being a Tory north of border ain't easy.

Yes giving her one of thr lower minsterry jobs would be good. She could be a decent PM, she held her own against Sturgeon which is better than may could of managed I'd wager.

Also a Lesbian ex army reserves in tory well, that's bound to build a tough layer of amour that make London set have a hard time penetrating.

Not sure if all bite, but she weathered the referendum, sturgeon, so even for bite is abit green, her thick skin is pretty tempered in political fire.

 Ketara wrote:
It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....

Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).

Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.

No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.

 jhe90 wrote:
She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.

She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.

That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't even know what people voted for. You had "status quo" versus "something else". That's not how you make a proper vote. It's a joke.

It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?

Why is my hypothetical actions in an unrelated hypothetical situation relevant to my point? Stop deflecting.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.

Which is how I view demands for a 2nd Referendum. If we were ever going to have a 2nd Referendum, then that should have been agreed upon from the very start, not demanded after the fact. Its moving the goal posts.

I'm not convinced. It's not a case of the government running the referendum until we vote Remain, but it's clear that it's still a very divisive issue and it's also not clear what the public actually want. Doing anything on a 52/48 majority is a joke.

Would I support another referendum if remain won? Yes and no. Yes because 52/48 is essentially a draw once you factor in any sort of error margin, you can't draw any conclusion on it apart from it being non-conclusive. You'd need something closer to 60/40 before you can genuinely claim any mandate (Scottish indyref was 55/45 and we thought that was too close so there's still a lot of interest in a re-run). No because the Remain position was clear - business as usual. Changin the status quo should require a slightly higher bar.

Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?

Bloodshed.

I view Brexit as potentially our last chance to secede from the EU and retain our national independence. One day, if we wait too long, we'll be too closely integrated that we will no longer be able to leave without resorting to force.

I'd argue we're already there - we've resisted integration for decades, so we're unlikely to have become any more integrated than we are now.
In terms of bloodshed, I think it's a real possibility once the masses realise how badly they've been screwed over for political gains. Those that voted Leave because their job was at risk and still lose their job, those that voted Leave to save the NHS to lose it anyway, those that voted Leave so that they could buy a house but still can't, those that voted Leave because they don't like foreigners, but immigration is unchanged. There were a lot of problems caused by poor governance that's been blamed on the EU for decades, and once it becomes apparent that it had nothing to do with the EU and we've trashed our economy to avoid blaming those responsible, I think there will be proper outrage from people who feel betrayed and have very little left to lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.

She's in an odd position where she has to defend anything that comes from the English Tories. It's hard to tell what she actually agrees with, but she's defended some pretty awful stuff.
She also promised that the Scottish members would vote in Scotlands interests, which vanished almost immediately. She also comes across as a properly nasty individual.

So an ideal Tory, but not a popular politician - just less awful as the rest of them due to having less exposure.

She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.

That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).

Exactly. Her entire campaign was how the SNP were bad, and Labour campaigning encouraged voting Tory to beat the SNP. Had people not been encouraged to vote strategically to beat the SNP I doubt they'd have done anything like as well as they did. Now that's become transparent their popularity has dropped back to nothing.

Essentially a draw is what wins in first past the post votes. Which is exactly what this country uses when voting for anything.


It doesn't matter in the end, if they wanted clarity they should have done so before the referendum took place, they did not because they thought we'd vote remain and they'd shut it down for another 30 years whilst we slowly merged into the larger European Community.


I am 100% certain, that if the vote was switched and remain won by 52/48 the public would not be going on about potential neverendums, how people didn't know what they were voting for etc etc etc. I'd put money on it, if I had a house I'd put that on it too.


Instead we just have a massive shambles because we jumped ship. We have a government that is more interested in internal squabbling instead of shutting up and doing their damn jobs. We have a general public that's still at odds with
one another because Remainers believe that all Leavers are racist bigots and all Leavers are convinced that all Remainers are having a massive paddy because the vote didn't go their way.


On the other hand if we voted remain we'd probably still have Cameron as PM, so this is still probably a better place to be in.

nfe wrote:

No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. She said:

" I think that it's right that child tax credits are limited to the first two children.

"I also think that it's right that if you are going to have that limit, that you have exceptions in exceptional cases.

"In terms of how that works on the ground, if there are issues with that, then I am completely open - if there are better ways of doing it - to reviewing that."

It was around cutting tax credits for children past the second one and how a specific exemption clause (that of rape) functioned. She didn't even deny that it should exist, she was talking about the mechanics of the law involved. If you're going to say that she's not a feminist for that, you might as well start saying anyone who ever supports any kind of cuts which affect women ever can't be a feminist, on account of the fact that they take services away from women who might have been raped.

I mean, think about it. NHS cuts? Oh no, they help people who've been raped! Anti-feminist! Police cuts? They investigate cases of rape! Housing support? People who've been raped live in those houses! The Army? Often when people go to war, opposing armies rape the civilians, so by cutting defence budgets you're increasing the possibility of rape! etcetc

It was a stupid headline devised by a Labour politician trying to find some way to sling some mud, and it was utterly ridiculous. If supporting a government policy for a minor (and it was minor, compared to something like the Atos debacle or the Universal Credit readjustment) benefits rule modification is the best someone can do for a character assassination? You're probably reasonably clean.

She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.

That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).

I don't disagree necessarily on the seat winning, but I'd challenge the idea that getting angry is necessarily a bad thing. Could you give more information on her explicitly endorsing racists? I haven't heard that before, and would be interested to see the evidence.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
...<snip>...

That's a real stretch. This is a change in legislation which has a specific clause that unduly penalises women who've been raped. You'd expect any womens rights advocate or feminist to be outraged by it.

I can see why it's there, but that doesn't make it OK.

There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.

Herzlos wrote:

That's a real stretch. This is a change in legislation which has a specific clause that unduly penalises women who've been raped. You'd expect any womens rights advocate or feminist to be outraged by it.

I can see why it's there, but that doesn't make it OK.

Firstly, feminists themselves can't even agree on who qualifies as a feminist half the time. Second generation ones are horrified by third generation ones.

Secondly, she never even said it should be removed. It was about a modification to the proposed rule; namely whether or not you should give someone a pile of public cash over eighteen years based on nothing but their word in a single meeting. The answer is possibly yes, and possibly no, and as Davidson herself said, things like that are 'difficult judgement calls'. Which they are. I repeat, you can extend that principle to practically any cut which affects women who may have been raped. It's a silly, laughable thing to lob around as an accusation relating to feminism, and I daresay 95% of all members of all British political houses have voted to do similar things at certain points in time over certain budgets.

The only reason Kezia Dugdale even said it was because she was desperately trying to find a rock to lob at the Tories to excuse her own poor performance, and she hoped that if she shouted the words 'Ruth Davidson' next to the words 'not a feminist' enough times in the headlines, some people might associate the two together without actually looking into it. Which is a standard enough political tactic, it gets used all over the world (Corbyn's been bitten massively by it). But in this case, it doesn't stand up to fifteen seconds of scrutiny as a serious allegation against the woman's feminist credentials.

There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.

Could you show me where Davidson was responsible for the DUP alliance in the Scottish Parliament? I wasn't aware the DUP were involved there.

That is, assuming you're nailing her for something she specifically did, and not just for being a Tory politician of some stripe (and therefore responsible in your eyes for anything any Tory does, including those more highly placed in a different chamber altogether to her).

 Ketara wrote:

There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.

Could you show me where Davidson was responsible for the DUP alliance in the Scottish Parliament? I wasn't aware the DUP were involved there.

That is, assuming you're nailing her for something she specifically did, and not just for being a Tory politician of some stripe (and therefore responsible in your eyes for anything any Tory does, including those more highly placed in a different chamber altogether to her).

She has a voice in the party, is present in downing street meetings etc. I'd have expected her to be outraged with the DUP deal and would have had enough sway to sink it. She didn't. I don't think she's publicly been anything but supportive of it.

Herzlos wrote:

She has a voice in the party, is present in downing street meetings etc. I'd have expected her to be outraged with the DUP deal and would have had enough sway to sink it. She didn't. I don't think she's publicly been anything but supportive of it.

So you think Davidson is morally culpable for not attempting to sabotage decisions made by the leader of her party in a completely separate chamber to that which she's involved in?

Okay. So your disagreement is essentially based upon 'She's a Tory' (since someone who did what you want wouldn't be one for long, if ever). That's fine, and totally a point of view you can have, but please don't be offended if others without that automatic distaste by association don't see the world the same way.

No my point is that whilst she seems to have strong convictions (which is a good thing, a politician that stands for something is what we want), she'll drop them in a heartbeat when told to (a bad thing).

As I type this, I'm listening to a live feed of the Davis/Barnier press conference.

To nobody's surprise, Barnier says that not enough progress has been made.

Well, you could knock me down with a feather.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. She said:

" I think that it's right that child tax credits are limited to the first two children.

"I also think that it's right that if you are going to have that limit, that you have exceptions in exceptional cases.

"In terms of how that works on the ground, if there are issues with that, then I am completely open - if there are better ways of doing it - to reviewing that."

It was around cutting tax credits for children past the second one and how a specific exemption clause (that of rape) functioned. She didn't even deny that it should exist, she was talking about the mechanics of the law involved. If you're going to say that she's not a feminist for that, you might as well start saying anyone who ever supports any kind of cuts which affect women ever can't be a feminist, on account of the fact that they take services away from women who might have been raped.

I mean, think about it. NHS cuts? Oh no, they help people who've been raped! Anti-feminist! Police cuts? They investigate cases of rape! Housing support? People who've been raped live in those houses! The Army? Often when people go to war, opposing armies rape the civilians, so by cutting defence budgets you're increasing the possibility of rape! etcetc

It was a stupid headline devised by a Labour politician trying to find some way to sling some mud, and it was utterly ridiculous. If supporting a government policy for a minor (and it was minor, compared to something like the Atos debacle or the Universal Credit readjustment) benefits rule modification is the best someone can do for a character assassination? You're probably reasonably clean.

You appear to be under the impression that 'Ruth Davidson supports the Rape Clause' is a Labour party smear derived from a single accusation - not her sticking up for forcing women through horrible processes in order to get child support for being forcibly impregnated literally dozens of times in interviews. It does help that she obviously think it's abhorrent, and looks like she wants to be sick every time she defends it, but she goes ahead and plugs the party line anyway.

She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.

That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).

I don't disagree necessarily on the seat winning, but I'd challenge the idea that getting angry is necessarily a bad thing. Could you give more information on her explicitly endorsing racists? I haven't heard that before, and would be interested to see the evidence.

I'm pretty busy and don't really have time to go collecting links - but it's hardly a challenge: here's (right-leaning) Scotsman and (left-leaning) National takes on the most recent incident to get you started, alongside a (very pro-independence, and a walloper) WOS run down on Tory bigotry antics, but you can do some googling about OL and ex-BNP members standing for the Tories, have a look at her right hand man Murdo Fraser's tweets (esp. stuff about the Queen's 11), etc.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ruth-davidson-under-fire-over-conservative-offenders-1-4567789
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15226300.Scottish_Tories_engulfed_in_racism_scandal_with_at_least_seven_council_candidates_now_in_the_spotlight/
https://wingsoverscotland.com/blue-is-the-new-orange/

Herzlos wrote:
No my point is that whilst she seems to have strong convictions (which is a good thing, a politician that stands for something is what we want), she'll drop them in a heartbeat when told to (a bad thing).

Err...yes? Because running Britain or the Tory Party isn't her department? I mean, seriously, think about what you're suggesting. You're saying that any politician who personally disagrees with the actions taken by the Prime Minister, or indeed, even the Minister of another department should immediately start briefing against them. In effect, you're asking that every politician should do what Bojo currently does.

I mean, how would that even work? The Minister for Agriculture doubtless has opinion on benefits. Should they start pushing their own ideas for that department and disagreeing with the Minister whose job it actually is? How do you get any kind of unified government in that sort of situation? Most politicians only join parties because they feel like they agree with the general philosophical thrust of that party, not because they expect that party to do absolutely everything they personally would like to see done. They don't just up and leave or start plotting every time the Minister of Defence gives a contract to a constituency different to that they'd have picked.

That's not how our system, or any political party within it functions. When you join a party, you knuckle under to the party line to an extent. If it starts to wildly diverge from that general philosophical approach, you might make a few public statements. It's only if it does it consistently that you'd leave or try some sort of mass internal reform/revolution. In this particular case, asking for more proof than somebody saying 'I pinky promise' before handing over a pile of public cash is hardly some massive sexist policy that would cause Davidson (or anyone else) to leave. It's not her job, not her pay grade, and not so vastly important/offensive as to push her into public protest.

When it comes to the DUP, she said, 'What I spoke to the Prime Minister about yesterday was the need for a categoric assurance that talking with the DUP would not result in any rollback of any LBGT rights in the rest of the UK. Because as the Conservative Party, we are the party of equal marriage, we introduced it to the House of Commons. And also we would use our influence to try and advance LGBT rights in Northern Ireland and they are the assurances that I got.”

So there you go. She clarified that LGBT rights would not be affected in any way, and pushed for them to be extended in Northern Ireland. I mean, what more do you want? A resignation? She also publicly disagreed with May over the process for leaving the ECHR, saying that ' I take a slightly different view from Theresa May - I think we should recognise that the ECHR was in large part drafted by people from Britain, and it's British values that are enshrined there.'

So frankly, I'm seeing someone who already speaks out more than is average for a party politician against the central line, but I'm aware also that it's only the uniqueness of her position (in a different house) that permits her to do so. Certainly, I'm not seeing someone who 'drops her beliefs in a heartbeat when told to'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

You appear to be under the impression that 'Ruth Davidson supports the Rape Clause' is a Labour party smear derived from a single accusation - not her sticking up for forcing women through horrible processes in order to get child support for being forcibly impregnated literally dozens of times in interviews. It does help that she obviously think it's abhorrent, and looks like she wants to be sick every time she defends it, but she goes ahead and plugs the party line anyway.

That's how politics and law work. It sounds to me like your issue is that laws can cut two ways, as opposed to anything to do with Davidson. Which sucks, but that really is life. You can't draft benefits laws on the basis of 'I pinky promise something happened, now please give me an exemption' in the same way you can't give someone disability payments or emergency housing just because they say they need them.

Right, let's look at the other stuff. Genuinely curious here.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ruth-davidson-under-fire-over-conservative-offenders-1-4567789

So....A Tory councillor slagged off Sturgeon as being 'ugly' and broke Godwin's law on her Twitter. To which she apologised when challenged, and Davidson said afterwards '“These comments were clearly unacceptable. Ms Leslie apologised for them when they came to light and removed them from social media. I’ve made it clear that everyone representing the Scottish Conservatives must uphold the highest standards when in office.”

....Okay? That was supposed to prove she was endorsing racists? Kind of...well, proves the opposite? A little puzzled here. Next one.

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15226300.Scottish_Tories_engulfed_in_racism_scandal_with_at_least_seven_council_candidates_now_in_the_spotlight/

So this one is about...another Tory councillor. Who apparently committed the heinous crime of...mentioning Operation Market Garden (a WW2 assault to free part of Europe) after asking why a Dutch person could support Scottish independence. Okay.

It also mentions a Tory candidate (not actually anyone in an official position) who called Sturgeon a 'cretin', 'a silly wee cow', and hoped that someone would leave her in a desert somewhere to shut her up about independence. Right. I mean, that's mildly offensive and sexist but....he literally isn't even a Tory official, and Davidson has likely never even heard of him before now. How is this supposed to prove that she endorses racists? Am I missing something?

https://wingsoverscotland.com/blue-is-the-new-orange

Okay. So this one is a list of Tory candidates who said some mildly offensive things. There's a councillor who some accuse of having once been a member of the BNP...who got fired within 48 hours of becoming a councillor. A clearly racist girl who made racist comments on her personal blog that hoped to one day be a Tory councillor. Complaints that someone who was in UKIP joined the Tories to contest a council seat, the two mentioned earlier, a single Tory councillor who made some anonymous comments on the net about the size of his dick and a joke about Catholics beijng paedophiles. I could go on, but this is a pretty pathetic list, and virtually none of them even officially represent the Tory party.

Did you mean to just send me a list of nasty things some candidates for local Councils said online? Because I'm really not sure how this substantiates your accusation of Ruth Davidson personally endorsing racism, the SNP and Labour both have similar lists of mongs saying mildly offensive things at that level. You may need to explain the link to me here.

have a look at her right hand man Murdo Fraser's tweets (esp. stuff about the Queen's 11).

Apparently Murdo made a tongue in cheek statement about taking down statues. It's one I'd agree with, speaking with my professional historian hat on.He called the National Union of Students bigots; something again I wouldn't necessarily disagree with given their record on anti-semitism. He also said that a football team bringing home a cup would be a nice present for the Queen (which is apparently outrageous for mixing football and politics).

Again, I'm reeeeally not seeing the links here. Can I also just say that if this is the worst politics gets north of the border? You guys clearly have waaaay nicer politics than we get down here in England.

As I say, I'm very busy this week so I'm not going to do the research for you - you've got two random links from the top of page 1 of google there but I suggest you have a bit of a look about. Some of it might take a working knowledge of Scottish sectarianism: if why an elected official tweeting about the Queen's 11 is a serious and immediate problem doesn't immediately jump out there's a lot of background that needs read up on - this nonsense kills people.

NB; I didn't say Davidson endorses racism, I said she endorses racist and sectarian candidates/members. Have a look for her lying to the press about sending sectarians and racists that she brought back into the party for training with Show Racism the Red Card, for example.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I type this, I'm listening to a live feed of the Davis/Barnier press conference.

To nobody's surprise, Barnier says that not enough progress has been made.

Well, you could knock me down with a feather.

Well with UK wanting to have their cake and eat and assume EU hands down to every demand UK makes no surprises.

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I type this, I'm listening to a live feed of the Davis/Barnier press conference.

To nobody's surprise, Barnier says that not enough progress has been made.

Well, you could knock me down with a feather.

Well with UK wanting to have their cake and eat and assume EU hands down to every demand UK makes no surprises.

And the EU seem to think that Britain is some kind of magic money tree. I've always said that Britain has a duty to honour treaty obligations and pay any money that is owed.

The EU seem to be pulling numbers from thin air.

Personally, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And the EU seem to think that Britain is some kind of magic money tree. I've always said that Britain has a duty to honour treaty obligations and pay any money that is owed.

The EU seem to be pulling numbers from thin air.

Personally, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it.

Did you just accuse the EU of pulling numbers from thin air, and then pull a number from thin air?

The EU gave us an estimate of what we owe, we've yet to provide any alternative between "go swivel" and "we're not paying". Why haven't we said "Well, our calculations make it $x, rather than the $y you want, and heres why".

Anything else is posturing and wasting time.

nfe wrote:
As I say, I'm very busy this week so I'm not going to do the research for you - you've got two random links from the top of page 1 of google there but I suggest you have a bit of a look about.

So I did as you said. I just waded through about four google pages of links after putting in the sorts of keywords you'd expect(racism, etc) along with her name. I discovered that she has apparently been in photographs with a person who it later turned out had made racist comments online. One of her MSP's said he was in favour of tougher restrictions on gypsy travellers (having lived near a site such travellers left behind once, I can sympathise). And she refused to boot out two councillors, one of which said something nasty about Catholics, and another who (in all fairness) seems to be a racist gakker. After this all came out:

Ms Davidson added: "I've been very strong in the past about wanting to change behaviour on social media and online.

"As well as a full disciplinary, as well as the sanction of being suspended, as well as a full and unreserved apology, both of the individuals indicated that they had a genuine wish to change their behaviour, and I've got a decision to make, then. Do I allow for that to happen, or not?

"I fully understand the criticism that's come in, but both have undertaken not only to do diversity training, but on top of that sitting down with Nil By Mouth, the anti-sectarian organisation."

Ms Davidson also said the councillors would be "out" if their behaviour did not change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41038305


That's literally all I've been able to uncover. In all seriousness, if this is the best you've got to hate on her for, the woman's practically an angel for UK politics. Have you seen some of the people Corbyn has endorsed and stood next to over the years? Or the stuff the likes of Ken Livingstone/Jon McDonnell/Harriet Harman have said? Or some of the vitriol official SNP campaigners came out with during Indyref? Or the crap half the local Tory councillors down here have said before getting booted? Christ, Moggy's said/done far worse than this. As for the House of Lords, you should hear some of the almost racist stuff they come out with in the canteen (being mostly ancient).

Scottish politics seems downright pleasant compared to full on British politics.

Have a look for her lying to the press about sending sectarians and racists that she brought back into the party for training with Show Racism the Red Card, for example.

Constant reiterations? What, twice in a couple months?

Glad you're catching up on the boredom. If someone's not going to bother to get au fait with exactly why it's an incredibly serious problem when people holding seats for political parties freely make sectarian jokes or belong to the Orange fething Lodge, and dismiss it as mildly offensive minutiae, then it's pretty tedious discussing it.

nfe wrote:
Constant reiterations? What, twice in a couple months?

I'd say three posts on one page within 24 hours justifies the phrase 'constant reiterations'. Certainly it's more accurate than your use of the phrase 'brazenly and openly'.

Glad you're catching up on the boredom. If someone's not going to bother to get au fait with exactly why it's an incredibly serious problem when people holding seats for political parties freely make sectarian jokes or belong to the Orange fething Lodge, and dismiss it as mildly offensive minutiae, then it's pretty tedious discussing it.

Guv. I've spent about an hour so far today investigating every petty case of a Tory candidate being nasty on Twitter that you've cared to link to. I'm not Scottish, I don't care who sits in the metaphorical throne up there. I went in to research your claim with an open mind, Christ knows enough Tories have been caught saying racist things or endorsing those who do over the years it wouldn't surprise me. But after poking around in the places you told me to, I found no evidence of her 'openly and brazenly' endorsing any racist candidate; frankly all her statements directly said the complete opposite.

I've done my bit trying to look precisely where you told me. And I found jack to support your original statement. You even accused her of lying when she was clearly just having a bit of a brain fart and said the wrong name (which we all do). So either come up with something worth my time (because I'm done wasting mine googling about), or leave it alone.