Sign in with Facebook
Paul Bryant's Reviews > Why We Get the Wrong Politicians
Why We Get the Wrong Politicians
by
by
December 2018 : Britain is stuck fast in the most absurd political quicksand. As the date for leaving the EU looms nearer (29 March 2019) these damned politicians literally don’t know what to do. Theresa May, the massively incompetent prime minister who almost lost the last election when it should have been a stroll in the park for the Conservatives, has spent two years in eye-bugging migraine-inducing negotiations with the EU and has hammered out a detailed (585 page long!) agreement that to her horror the British Parliament will not vote for – even her own party. So obvious was it that everyone hated her deal that she would not even put it forward to the House of Commons for approval, as she has to do.
What to do? Go back to the EU and ask for a few tweaks here and there? They have said a firm no to any real changes. Then bring the deal back & get defeated in the House of Commons? Then what?
If there is no deal agreed by next March the UK will leave the EU without one & this, says everyone apart from a small gang of rightwing headbangers, will be very bad. It will be a little local apocalypse - better stockpile your medications and cancel your holidays if that happens! Better start keeping edible pets! That nuclear bunker you had installed in 1987 doesn’t look so stupid now!
Theresa May’s own MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Theresa May last week. She won it though, two thirds of her party supported her. (I wonder if Donald Trump would win a vote of no confidence amongst Republican senators?)
Siren voices are calling for a second referendum – the first asked the question “do you want to leave the EU?” – it was a yes/no thing, and was won by the leavers 52% to 48%. It did not ask HOW you want to leave, & that has been the big problem. There are many ways to leave, it turns out! But other people say – are you crazy? That would only postpose our terminal confusion!
The Labour Party, meanwhile, is calling for a general election. They won’t get it as you have to have a two thirds majority in the Commons to have a snap election & the Conservatives will not be voting for it as turkeys would also not be voting for the upcoming Christmas should they have been enfranchised. If they did get it then the problem would be theirs, and they don’t know what to do either.
There is no solution to this! But there must be! But there isn’t!
This book by a wellknown political journo is a jeremiad about British politics & lands at the exact right time. No one can dispute the main arguments here, that the gruesome culture of Westminster & the House of Commons smothers any outbreaks of competence like a fire blanket. Isabel Hardman anatomises all the ‘orrible things about members of parliament –
They are mostly posh, mostly male, mostly white, mostly middleaged
Becoming a parliamentary candidate is really very ‘orrible and can drive you mad
Should you succeed, being an MP is quite likely to destroy your family life & your marriage. So to avoid that you can employ your spouse as your office manager and are then accused of nepotism.
It’s a lonely life with too many very late nights, much freeflowing booze and too many plumptious eager young researchers and too many rabid journalists aching to catch you at it, like the one mp who was inveigled into sending a photo of his genitalia on Snapchat to a delectable young lady who was really a male reporter taking a screenshot
The mps are just voting fodder shepherded around by the evil whips. (The term comes from hunting – the whipper-in was a guy who whipped stray dogs to make them go back into the hunting pack.)
The mps all suck up their numerous humiliations because they want to become ministers and start being important
The House of Commons is like Gormenghast, with a thousand rooms and ten thousand arcane rules and no rule book (words you may not use in a Commons debate : hooligan, git, rat, stoolpigeon and Pecksniffian. You can’t infer any fellow mp is a liar or a hypocrite even though you know they are both.)
The public think you’re in it for the money, however many shelters for the homeless or donkey sanctuaries you have established
Like any junkie you hate your drug (politics!) and you love it, hate it, love it, round and round
No one rewards anybody for proper scrutiny of proposed legislation so mostly that doesn’t happen and we wind up with shambolic laws like the bedroom tax
All of this is delivered in a swift merrily gurgling stream of suppressed horror by Isabel Hardman but her book has two problems –
1 – is this how politics is done everywhere or do some countries do it better? If so, who? And do not say SWEDEN or I will bite you. There are no comparisons so for all the reader knows Britain is doing politics much better than anywhere! It might be rubbish but you should see the others!
2 – how should this sorry state be fixed? Isabel has a rather rushed 20 pages right at the end and it is not convincing.
But, a pretty good read for political addicts like myself.
What to do? Go back to the EU and ask for a few tweaks here and there? They have said a firm no to any real changes. Then bring the deal back & get defeated in the House of Commons? Then what?
If there is no deal agreed by next March the UK will leave the EU without one & this, says everyone apart from a small gang of rightwing headbangers, will be very bad. It will be a little local apocalypse - better stockpile your medications and cancel your holidays if that happens! Better start keeping edible pets! That nuclear bunker you had installed in 1987 doesn’t look so stupid now!
Theresa May’s own MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Theresa May last week. She won it though, two thirds of her party supported her. (I wonder if Donald Trump would win a vote of no confidence amongst Republican senators?)
Siren voices are calling for a second referendum – the first asked the question “do you want to leave the EU?” – it was a yes/no thing, and was won by the leavers 52% to 48%. It did not ask HOW you want to leave, & that has been the big problem. There are many ways to leave, it turns out! But other people say – are you crazy? That would only postpose our terminal confusion!
The Labour Party, meanwhile, is calling for a general election. They won’t get it as you have to have a two thirds majority in the Commons to have a snap election & the Conservatives will not be voting for it as turkeys would also not be voting for the upcoming Christmas should they have been enfranchised. If they did get it then the problem would be theirs, and they don’t know what to do either.
There is no solution to this! But there must be! But there isn’t!
This book by a wellknown political journo is a jeremiad about British politics & lands at the exact right time. No one can dispute the main arguments here, that the gruesome culture of Westminster & the House of Commons smothers any outbreaks of competence like a fire blanket. Isabel Hardman anatomises all the ‘orrible things about members of parliament –
They are mostly posh, mostly male, mostly white, mostly middleaged
Becoming a parliamentary candidate is really very ‘orrible and can drive you mad
Should you succeed, being an MP is quite likely to destroy your family life & your marriage. So to avoid that you can employ your spouse as your office manager and are then accused of nepotism.
It’s a lonely life with too many very late nights, much freeflowing booze and too many plumptious eager young researchers and too many rabid journalists aching to catch you at it, like the one mp who was inveigled into sending a photo of his genitalia on Snapchat to a delectable young lady who was really a male reporter taking a screenshot
The mps are just voting fodder shepherded around by the evil whips. (The term comes from hunting – the whipper-in was a guy who whipped stray dogs to make them go back into the hunting pack.)
The mps all suck up their numerous humiliations because they want to become ministers and start being important
The House of Commons is like Gormenghast, with a thousand rooms and ten thousand arcane rules and no rule book (words you may not use in a Commons debate : hooligan, git, rat, stoolpigeon and Pecksniffian. You can’t infer any fellow mp is a liar or a hypocrite even though you know they are both.)
The public think you’re in it for the money, however many shelters for the homeless or donkey sanctuaries you have established
Like any junkie you hate your drug (politics!) and you love it, hate it, love it, round and round
No one rewards anybody for proper scrutiny of proposed legislation so mostly that doesn’t happen and we wind up with shambolic laws like the bedroom tax
All of this is delivered in a swift merrily gurgling stream of suppressed horror by Isabel Hardman but her book has two problems –
1 – is this how politics is done everywhere or do some countries do it better? If so, who? And do not say SWEDEN or I will bite you. There are no comparisons so for all the reader knows Britain is doing politics much better than anywhere! It might be rubbish but you should see the others!
2 – how should this sorry state be fixed? Isabel has a rather rushed 20 pages right at the end and it is not convincing.
But, a pretty good read for political addicts like myself.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Why We Get the Wrong Politicians.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
December 14, 2018
–
Started Reading
December 16, 2018
– Shelved
December 17, 2018
– Shelved as:
politics
December 17, 2018
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 66 (66 new)
message 1:
by
Lina
(new)
Dec 17, 2018 07:23AM
I think people should be allowed to apply for asylum based on "My country's politicians are really, really stupid". It wouldn't solve anything, but it would be very funny.
reply
|
flag
@Lina but then none of us will ever stop moving.
That's the whole point! If all people are always moving, no one will have time or energy to make other people's lives harder.It's genius, I tell you! And moving companies would surely lobby for it.
"They won’t get ... a snap election ... it as turkeys would also not be voting for the upcoming Christmas should they have been enfranchised. If they did get it then the problem would be theirs, and they don’t know what to do either."Making about as much sense as the DUP's support for the Conservative government, turkeys might vote for Christmas as long as it was tied to a return of the goose as the official Christmas meal.
they said recently that they don't support Theresa, but they still support the Conservatives. So hint - get rid of Theresa. But no one really wants the job at the moment.
"And do not say SWEDEN or I will bite you. "I always wonder in Swedish people's mind,which country is doing better in politics :))))
or anything else.... or maybe there is no concept of "better than Swedish" in the Swedish language.
Paul I shall say ICELAND or Norway ! Also your description of Brexit is brilliant and I just imagined you as the guy in the trying to explain meme
any questions, just ask!
Paul wrote: "they said recently that they don't support Theresa, but they still support the Conservatives. So hint - get rid of Theresa. But no one really wants the job at the moment."Isn't that how she got the job? After all, even Boris wouldn't touch it, and everybody knows how much he wants it.
Paul wrote; "No one rewards anybody for proper scrutiny of proposed legislation so mostly that doesn’t happen and we wind up with shambolic laws like the bedroom tax."
But, consider the good side. Some bright person can get away with adding; "Paul Bryant, his heirs, successors, and illegitimate children will be paid 500,000 Euros per week in perpetuity."
Sounds like GR "management." Putz inveiglement, no less.
But, consider the good side. Some bright person can get away with adding; "Paul Bryant, his heirs, successors, and illegitimate children will be paid 500,000 Euros per week in perpetuity."
Sounds like GR "management." Putz inveiglement, no less.
Paul wrote; "The House of Commons is like Gormenghast, with a thousand rooms and ten thousand arcane rules and no rule book (words you may not use in a Commons debate : hooligan, git, rat, stoolpigeon and Pecksniffian. You can’t infer any fellow mp is a liar or a hypocrite even though you know they are both.)"
Well, they're just a bunch of wets. Aren't they? Small complaint, as YouTube shows that fistfights are still allowed.
Well, they're just a bunch of wets. Aren't they? Small complaint, as YouTube shows that fistfights are still allowed.
Paul wrote; "There are many ways to leave."
An attorney is advised, unless you can reasonably divvy up the stuff, and fight over the dog.
An attorney is advised, unless you can reasonably divvy up the stuff, and fight over the dog.
Paul wrote: "any questions, just ask!"
Where did Britain get its meds and chocolate puppies before they ransacked the EU?
Where did Britain get its meds and chocolate puppies before they ransacked the EU?
sensible questions only, please. Since Britain divested itself of its empire, no ransacking has been done.
I know someone whose sister in law (to his horror) votes for Brexit. I'm dying to ask him what she thinks of all this now but I don't dare.
Paul wrote: "sensible questions only, please. Since Britain divested itself of its empire, no ransacking has been done."I think the problem is that the people who voted to join the European community thought that it was a way to get the Empire back. That didn't work, so they're the same ones who voted to leave.
those people would all be quite old now. It's true that young people voted remain by a large margin. But of course old people vote much more than young people. The campaign for a second referendum (called a "neverendum" by some wags) is thought to be promoted by remainers (called "remoaners" by some wags) who believe, perhaps fondly, that in view of the current horrorshow, people would wake up to reality and vote to remain if they were given the chance.
Paul wrote: "those people would all be quite old now."Well, not _that_ old. I was just slightly too young to vote, and I'm 60 now. So, it seems highly probable to me that if all the people who voted in both referenda (got to be a few million) had stuck to their original votes, we would have had a remain vote. I'd have to do the maths myself, as it seems Google hasn't yet done it for me...
OK.
Vote in 1975 was ~67% (of approximately 26 million) for the EU.
Vote in 2016 was ~48% (of 46.5 million—+1! almost makes me sorry I got registered in time)
In 2016: 16,141,241 voted Remain; 17,410,742 voted Leave
The Office of National Statistics says that in 2016, 18% of the population were over 65, while the Census says that, in 2011, 22% were over 60. Let's generously (and for the sake of simple arithmetic) say that 20%, then, were 18 at the time of the 1975 referendum (it might not be that generous as immigration/emigration will lower the number).
Extrapolating from Ipsos numbers, about 36% of 61+ voters in 2016 voted Remain.
Ben Clements at the LSE says that pro-EC voting in the 1975 referendum was lowest in the 18-29 age group at 62%. They're the ones most likely to still be around to have voted in both, so we'll just go with 62%.
Now we get to the slightly dodgy maths. In 2016:
36% of 20% of 46,500,001 = 3,348,000 (extrapolated from Ipsos) voted to Remain
64% of 20% of 46,500,001 = 5,952,000 voted Leave
If they'd voted as they had in 1975, the Remain vote would be at least:
62% of 20% of 46,500,001 = 5,766,000
16,141,241 + (5,766,000 - 3,348,000) = 18,559,241 Remain
38% of 20% of 46,500,001 = 3,534,000
17,410,742 + (3,534,000 - 5,952,000) = 14,992,742 Stay
So, it's the voters who voted to join the EU who voted Brexit!
The English political culture is diseased. It's chronic. And they avoid diagnosis at all costs.
Derek - the original IN voters have now become brexiteers, I thinkFrank - so what is your diagnosis?
Paul wrote: "Derek - the original IN voters have now become brexiteers, I think"Exactly my point (and with the arithmetic to back it up now, in my previous post).
Frank wrote: "The English political culture is diseased. It's chronic. And they avoid diagnosis at all costs."But isn't all political culture diseased? I don't know a "body politic" without raging cancer. Oh, wait, the Swedes...
Derek - we agree - the youthful voters in 1975 have now had a lifetime of experience with the EU and plus they have got a whole lot less Morning Star and more Daily Mail on their journey through life, & so are now Brexiteers. It's logical. I think if there is a 2nd referendum that vote will harden as now everyone sees how intransigent the EU has been.
And yes, there is no political culture without its own ghastly problems. This was my main criticism of Isabel Hardman's book - the way she writes it is like Britain is some kind of special basket case.
Paul wrote: "I think if there is a 2nd referendum that vote will harden as now everyone sees how intransigent the EU has been."Really? I must be far more of an optimist than I've ever imagined, because this has all seemed so inevitable to me. Of course the EU has been intransigent. All they've ever been offered (and all that was on the table even before the vote) was a worse deal (for the EU) than a no-deal Brexit. May hasn't considered compromise once. Which, in fairness, isn't something her own party would have let her get away with. But the hardliners have always thought they could leave the EU and make the EU pay the costs. It wasn't ever going to happen that way.
I think a second referendum would swing, because so many people realize that May's Brexit isn't the same as the Brexit they wanted (including both the very hard and the very soft Brexiteers; and including the over-60 crowd).
well I think there is a difference between yourself, Derek, and the rest of the Great British Public.... you actually notice what's going on and the GBP don't notice anything at all until the Sun hammers it into their brains using 9 inch nails. So they've only just woken up to a whole lot of things. I have not previously considered if May's deal is worse from the EU's point of view than a no deal. Good point. Not heard it discussed at all.
Derek wrote; "I think a second referendum would swing, because so many people realize that May's Brexit isn't the same as the Brexit they wanted (including both the very hard and the very soft Brexiteers; and including the over-60 crowd)."
Oh. Thanks for the clarification. In the UK "out" does not equal "out."
Oh. Thanks for the clarification. In the UK "out" does not equal "out."
It really doesn't. And that's the real problem with referendums. If they'd specified the exact type of "out", Remain would have won in a landslide. If it had been more than a Yes/No question, Remain would have won in a landslide. Neither would have fairly resolved the question, but neither did putting a question that comes down to "if you have any problems with the EU at all, vote to Leave!"There are a hard-core of xenophobes who want to be out purely to keep out the foreigners (most of them not even realizing that most of the foreigners they want to keep out aren't EU citizens in the first place, and Britain can already block them if it wants to).
Then there are the people who think that the EU costs us money. Some of those want to stay in the common market, some of them think that's the major part of what costs us money. A major plank of the Leave platform was that we could take the money the EU cost us and put it back into the National Health Service. Now that it's obvious there's no extra money for the NHS, many of the people who believed that one feel betrayed.
There are a lot whose only objection is to being subject to the EU courts.
It took literally days after May took over the leadership for people to start saying that "We voted to leave the EU, not ..."—fill in your own blanks!
still, £39 billion is a lot of dough.
Paul wrote: "still, £39 billion is a lot of dough."Sure it is. I'm not sure what it's money for though. Our net costs to be in the EU are about £9 billion a year. There won't be more money for the NHS because we'll still have to pay to play with the EU, and can't afford not to play with them. Per capita, Norway pays about 2/3 as much to the EU as we do. So, perhaps we might save £3 billion a year. Still a lot of money. But even if it did all go to the NHS, that would increase the NHS budget less than 3%. Bets on losing more than that to inflation next year?
it's supposed to be for all manner of "projects" like infrastructure plus contributions to pension funds.... gonna be years before we see any monetary benefit in leaving..See if you agree with my predictions (which are usually wrong!) -
May loses vote on 14 January
May cannot suggest any Plan B because there isn't one
Commons confirms it cannot support crashing out
May forced to suspend Article 50
May resigns to let another leader have a go
Sajid Javid selected as interim leader
Second referendum debated - no idea which way that debate will go (but no new election)
Stalemate essentially continues through 2019
Left out Sajid Javid steps down out of political good sense.
Paul wrote: "See if you agree with my predictions (which are usually wrong!)"Pretty much. I don't care enough about the Conservative party to want to bet on Javid, but he's got to be on the short-list. And definitely no new election: the DUP is going to keep propping up this government, because they can't expect to be in this position again after the next election, and however much they hate each other, the Conservatives will still band together in a confidence vote.
BlairB wrote: "Left out Sajid Javid steps down out of political good sense."
LOL. I don't know the way this sort of thing is usually done here, but back in Canada the rules for selection of a successor are usually set by the parties at the time of each out-going leader's resignation, and in most cases they select an interim leader who will not be permitted to run to become the permanent leader. If that's the case here, it would be a canny move to step in as the interim leader! You get to add "Prime Minister of the UK" to your resume, and can't be blamed for anything (well, as long as you don't do anything truly stupid!).
Derek wrote; "You get to add Prime Minister of the UK to your resume.
Good stuff. But, if as PM you have to negotiate Brexit with all the unreasonable people involved, you might wind up with the job prospects of Jimmy Carter.
Good stuff. But, if as PM you have to negotiate Brexit with all the unreasonable people involved, you might wind up with the job prospects of Jimmy Carter.
Relax, Paul! However unhappy you may be with Theresa May, just imagine you had, instead, Donald Trump. You ask whether or not Trump would win a vote of no confidence amongst Republican senators. I suppose, he would. No, they are not all fans of him, but if they voted against Trump, he would take revenge with a derogatory tweet, which could ruin their career and, at the very least, would initiate an attack on their Facebook page by armies of vicious, storm-trooping Trump supporters.
You are talking about a local apocalypse. I am worried about a global apocalypse. It is not too early for doomsday prepping and getting nuclear bunkers refurbished. (I am NOT kidding. I just recently read in a trustworthy book* that, a while ago, it had taken military experts quite some effort to talk Trump out of starting a war with North Korea.) Yet if you suggest once more that people start keeping edible pets, I’ll never forgive you. I’d give my last can of tuna to our beloved cats, and if I should die in a doomsday, our cats would be welcome to eat my remains, but cats only eat fresh meat, so what were left after a few days, would have to go to our dogs.
I can hardly believe that you have Members of Parliament sending photos of their genitalia to delectable young ladies. I thought such kind of conduct was only an American thing, practiced by 12-14-year-old males and some members of Congress.—Btw, how come men on both sides of the ocean haven’t caught on that the average delectable young lady does NOT get aroused by the looks of male genitalia. It’s charm (and in some cases money or—more tactfully—a luxurious gift) that can produce the desired result—not a disgusting direkt approach, as one might expect from a retarded behind-the-bushes sexual offender.
Interesting that in your House of Commons, there are rules as to use of language. There is not such a thing in our country. Here politicians of all coleurs, be it in the House, the Senate, or the White House, can (and will) use as much bad language as they like. It will only get beeped out when transmitted on tv. And anybody can insult anybody. Trump has shown anyone how to do it, and the old German saying “Wie der Herr, so ’s G’scher. (As the master, so the subordinates.)” has proven true once again.
What’s interesting is the American use of the terms “lies” and “liar”. Up until about a year ago, CNN news anchors were bashful. They called lies “statements that would not withstand fact-checking”. Later, when Trump’s lies became more and more unabashed, they’d call them “untruths”. And for the past half year or so, when they became simply outrageous, they’d finally call them what they are, namely, just simply, “lies”.
Now, it is different with the word “rat”, the way the term is used by Trump and Giuliani. If someone has solidly flipped on Trump, as Michael Cohen has done, the term “rat” is used. If, on the other hand, someone has flipped but might still have some secrets stacked away that he might spill later if insulted, as Michael Flynn might have, the term “fine person” or “good man” is preferred.—See, there are differences between British and American use of English.
There would be so much more to say to distinguish British politicians from American politicians, but they seem to have one thing in common: Most are in for the money.
We can talk about the differences some time later again. It is time to feed our cats, who will NOT BE EATEN AT DOOMSDAY !
* You need to read "Everything Trump Touches Dies", by Rick Wilson, a Republican (!) strategist and founder of the, unfortunately unsuccessful, movement "Never Trump". I just finished reading this book but won't have time to review it any time soon. I didn't like the title, which I found a bit confusing, but the book is an absolute must-read. One caution, however: The drastic and explicit language used in this book might require a Catholic reader to go to confession after finishing this book. Yet, as far as I know, you are not Catholic.
No, not Catholic nor anything else either.Strangely, perversely even, I don't think most or even many British politicians are in it for the money. They get paid £74,000 (around $95,000) - it's an okay salary, a bit less than a school head.
Over here we are amazed at how many of Trump's former henchmen are being carted off to jail telling the prosecutors all about his participation in their crimes but the prosecutors cannot touch Trump himself.
But there's a funny thing about Trump.... (more than one, it's true) - so far unlike previous recent presidents he hasn't invaded any other countries!
In addition to other US-UK cultural insights, Lilo wrote; "I can hardly believe that you have Members of Parliament sending photos of their genitalia to delectable young ladies."
I was truly shocked too. I had always thought their "flirtations" to be with young boys.
I was truly shocked too. I had always thought their "flirtations" to be with young boys.
I am shocked that you are shocked to find that our male MPs are not exclusively pederasts. I know most of them have gone to public schools but that is an aspersion too far.
Paul wrote: "No, not Catholic nor anything else either.Strangely, perversely even, I don't think most or even many British politicians are in it for the money. They get paid £74,000 (around $95,000) - it's an..."
Neither am I. (Was brought up Catholic. Didn't stick.)
I forget how much American politicians make. But the salary doesn't really matter. It's the side incomes (legal and/or illegal) that are so rewarding.
So why isn't Trump locked up yet (or, at least, indicted)?
The constitution is a bit unclear whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. The Founding Fathers held the opinion that an indictment of a sitting president would distract a president from his duties and would be disrupting for the functioning of the administration. From what I heard, there are exceptions mentioned in the constitution, but they are not clearly spelled out. Were a sitting president indicted, his lawyers would, certainly, fight the indictment, and the matter would end up with the Supreme Court. This whole process would be very time-taking and would throw the country into turmoil, which might result in a civil war. For this reason, the special counsel will shy away from indicting Trump. Besides, Trump has fired Sessions, the Attorney General (who had recused himself from the Mueller investigation), has temporarily replaced him with Mueller-critic Whitaker (who should have recused himself but didn't), and is now about to appoint (or has already appointed?) another Mueller-critic for the job. The AG is, of course, Mueller's superior. So with a Trump crony as AG, Trump should be quite safe.
As to Trump not yet having invaded another country, I can only say: "Es ist noch nicht aller Tage Abend. (It is not every day's evening yet.)".
BlairB wrote: "In addition to other US-UK cultural insights, Lilo wrote; "I can hardly believe that you have Members of Parliament sending photos of their genitalia to delectable young ladies."I was truly shock..."
:-)
Paul wrote: "I am shocked that you are shocked to find that our male MPs are not exclusively pederasts. I know most of them have gone to public schools but that is an aspersion too far.":-)
BlairB wrote: "Derek wrote; "You get to add Prime Minister of the UK to your resume.Good stuff. But, if as PM you have to negotiate Brexit with all the unreasonable people involved, you might wind up with the job pr..."Uh... Jimmy Carter has been very well employed since leaving the presidency. And that's for a president who actually has to take responsibility for his own choices in office.
A very good article about the "real" causes of Brexit; and why they're not being addressed in the Guardian yesterday.
As a resident of Plymouth (or is it Portsmouth?), I particularly liked: "This article was amended on 21 December 2018 to address some confusion between Plymouth and Portsmouth"
The Jimmy Carter "analogy" was just a quick throwaway for here, and really doesn't matter to me. In fact, I think he went back to his peanut farm, and did charity work, but I'm not 100% sure. My only attempted point was that there are some jobs guaranteed to stain and discredit the jobholder, and it seems like Theresa May has one of those now.
Very much like and agree with Lilo's post #139. Early on Mueller did say that he would not indict a sitting president. Excepting inbred fanatics, in the US we're pretty certain that we have a President who wouldn't recognize legality if Dershowitz gave him private lessons. But, he'll be there until Mueller's report is used as the basis for a successful impeachment, he is voted out of office, the two term limit expires, or he drops dead.
It's surprising to me how foreigners have so little idea of how democracy works. Jeez.
Very much like and agree with Lilo's post #139. Early on Mueller did say that he would not indict a sitting president. Excepting inbred fanatics, in the US we're pretty certain that we have a President who wouldn't recognize legality if Dershowitz gave him private lessons. But, he'll be there until Mueller's report is used as the basis for a successful impeachment, he is voted out of office, the two term limit expires, or he drops dead.
It's surprising to me how foreigners have so little idea of how democracy works. Jeez.
I think he'll get re-elected.Let me mention how democracy works in the UK - a new MP, elected in 2015, got a speeding prosecution - she was caught doing 41 in a 30mph street - she then lied to the cops and said she wasn't driving - they found out her lie - now she will have to resign her seat. She's out. Just like that.
WOW! I think that would be unconstitutional "cruel and unusual" punishment in the US, if not first adjudicated through a "no contest" plea with an explanation and a $50 fine.
Personally, I think Trump is a goner, only because it will take only 17 Republican senators to vote for impeachment. Not that they're discovering some sort of political morality, but that through Trump's loud articulation of long held Republican principles, the senators are worried about their own constituencies if they vote not to impeach. We'll see, and I'm not betting a nickel.
Anyway, if impeached, along comes Pence, and quiet administration of the same program.
Personally, I think Trump is a goner, only because it will take only 17 Republican senators to vote for impeachment. Not that they're discovering some sort of political morality, but that through Trump's loud articulation of long held Republican principles, the senators are worried about their own constituencies if they vote not to impeach. We'll see, and I'm not betting a nickel.
Anyway, if impeached, along comes Pence, and quiet administration of the same program.
Paul wrote; "Let me mention how democracy works in the UK - a new MP, elected in 2015, got a speeding prosecution - she was caught doing 41 in a 30mph street - she then lied to the cops and said she wasn't driving - they found out her lie - now she will have to resign her seat. She's out. Just like that. '
Let me mention what would have happened if the speeder was a Muslim MP. The cops would be suspended without pay, and up on charges. The speeder's Sharia Law constituents would honor her at rallies declaring her PM while threatening native Brits and 48% would vote for her.
In a historical perspective understand that the Brits lost the new world to a few guys in coonskin caps. When you lose your own country to a few guys in babushkas, you better hope the Russians straighten things out for you, as US borders are closed.
Let me mention what would have happened if the speeder was a Muslim MP. The cops would be suspended without pay, and up on charges. The speeder's Sharia Law constituents would honor her at rallies declaring her PM while threatening native Brits and 48% would vote for her.
In a historical perspective understand that the Brits lost the new world to a few guys in coonskin caps. When you lose your own country to a few guys in babushkas, you better hope the Russians straighten things out for you, as US borders are closed.
The mp is Fiona Onasanya, who is one of very few black female mps. She is a Christian. She has issued a statement via WhatsApp :
“In times like these, the natural inclination of believers is to ask God: why? I personally do not, because in my experience the answers are usually far above and beyond my reach. What I do know is that I am in good biblical company, along with Joseph, Moses, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, who were each found guilty by the courts of their day.
“While God did not save them from a guilty verdict, he did save them in it and ensured that their greatest days of impact were on the other side of a guilty verdict. Of course this is equally true of Christ, who was accused and convicted by the courts of his day and yet this was not his end but rather the beginning of the next chapter in his story.”
It's heartwarming to hear from a former politician on par with Joseph, Moses, Daniel, and Jesus. I'm rejoicing right now.
I enjoyed this thread, took me back to a time when I shared the blind optimism that sense could be seen by the electorate.
