Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Donald Trump thread

EM you missed a step from your description of parliamentry democracy, probably the key step, and it is step one.

Before they are elected parties put a series of promises the people some, probably most, will result in legislation.We vote our MPs in either to introduce the legislation, or to oppose the parts of legislative programme they disagree with if they don't get a majority. They are representatives of the views of their constituents, and not freelance legislators able to vote as theplease (although some do).

Mark Hodgson. I voted Leave, and, like you fully expected to lose, but would have accepted the result. I think that politicians calling for a second referendum are a disgrace to their profession. What happens if they lose the second referendum? Do we have to go to best out of 5?

Same in the USA, Trump was, as far as I'm aware the 45th president to be put in office by the Electoral College, but now, because the left lost, it's not fair because Hillary gained most of the popular vote.

I'm a FPTP supporter because I believe all other forms of voting give fringe minorities who wouldn't get a seat in government too much power in government. I believe we should reduce the House of Lords to the same number of representatives as the Commons and have an amending chamber representing the popular vote of the people i.e. 3% of votes gets 3% of seats. That way all parties get to have a say in all legislation, but you don't have the tail wagging the dog on the legislative programme.

Jan 20, 2017 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

golfCharlie. Might I remind you that we haven't started Brexiting yet - that starts end March(?). Yet already the Pound has lost 20% of its former value (hurrah, my Canadian pensions are now inflated, (but Boo prices here will eventually rise in response)) and banks have announced theyare moving some of their staff away from London.

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Supertroll, I entirely accept there will be winners and losers, and your personal finances are a good example.

None of the Remain experts have accepted that they got anything wrong, in any of the dire predictions of doom and gloom that they made, and were so eagerly publicised by the BBC et al.

Whose advice are you relying on now? That some big City firms are still waiting to see what happens, is very different to the predicted mass exodus. If there is a mass exodus, the top end of the housing market will falter, leading to a ripple down through the entire market. Is that such a bad thing for first time buyers/renters in a market with limited housing stock?

Jan 20, 2017 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Supertroll, goods manufactured in the UK are now 20% cheaper for overseas buyers. UK buyers and holidaymakers are more likely to spend within the UK economy.

Great news isn't it?

Jan 20, 2017 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Do you believed warnings from banks and other financial institutions to move from London are just empty threats?
I am pleased you are looking after the welfare of the currently homeless, but you rather neglect the perhaps millions who are relying on their houses to provide a reasonable pension income. Winners and losers, as you say but the Mrs Trellises of North Wales and the Colonels (retired) of Tunbridge Wells who support the Tories, Brexit and Trump (if they could) will join the ranks of the revolting.

Jan 20, 2017 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

GolfCharlie. My granddaughter wants a new I-pad for her birthday next month. Last time I looked the price had dramatically increased because of the weak Pound. [Can you suggest a British equivalent?]

Bad news for me isn't it?

Went to fill up my car with diesel (shameful isn't it?) this morning. So grateful to be paying so much more per litre because of our feeble currency. But so, so worth it for what we're getting. Have you noticed the new sping buds of democracy bursting out all over UKIP-land, or the increased love and affection with which we are being held by Europe?

Jan 20, 2017 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Supertroll, you excluded the traditional Labour supporters who voted for Brexit.

London generally voted to remain, including the wealthiest areas.

I do not know about Norfolk residents, and how they voted, but I am not traditional Labour, nor a monied City Gent. If it had not been for all the misinformation so well PR'ed by Remain, what would the true split have been between Brexit and Remain? 60:40? 70:30?

This blog has correctly taken issue with faked up consensus declarations. Now the UK can see how many "experts" lied to them, a Brexit re-run now, would show an increase in support for Brexit, not a reversal.

Jan 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gC. If you are correct in your supposition of an increased support for Brexit, why do you and others oppose another referendum? (note to any lurkers, I am not proposing a 2nd ref).

Jan 20, 2017 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

The figures in the EU referendum for the East of England were 43.5% remain and 56.5% leave. Just for my own curiosity I calculated as best I could the figures for Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex combined and I made them 40.8% remain and 59.2% leave.

Jan 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

…what should happen if it could be shown that Brexit would have significant adverse economic and political consequences.
And how would this be shown? More to the point, could it be possible for this to be shown? That could really only be shown by reference to history – in other words, we will have to wait and see. Raise the same point in 2020, and we will have some real meat to work on; but then, your trepidations may well have been proven, wrong or right.

Jan 20, 2017 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Supertroll, how many referenda should we have? The decision has been made. Now, let us all get on with it. The Right to free access to other EU Countries and their welfare, benefits and pensions still exjsts.

Can we hold Major, Blair and Brown liable for not holding a referendum before?

Jan 20, 2017 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mike fowle. Yes I am a lonely wallflower in Norfolk (and here). So wot?

Jan 20, 2017 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Ravishing Rattie. Now that we know the UK will leave the European economic union it is possible to make better estimates of the consequences (as two banks have already done within 48 hours). We know that weakening currencies do not prosper as well as strong ones and it is possible to calculate outcomes (both monetarily and in terms of employment and well being). Some employment is highly dependent on free access to the European market.
Frankly I cannot see Europe allowing the UK to benefit from Brexit, which logically translates into us being disadvantaged with respect to Europe. For at least four years it will be the United States first, so forget the hype and spin associated with Trump's statements. Unsettled trade relationships benefit nobody.

GolfCharlie I actually don't want a succession of referenda. I want parliament (not necessarily government) to make decisions. If parliament votes against the referendum decision then we need an election to sort out this whole legislative mess.

Jan 20, 2017 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Wow, rest in peace, the Climate Action Plan. Trump's White House already has the bulletin of its funeral up.

Jan 20, 2017 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Sterling's bounce won't be a lead cat one.

Jan 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim


I've been AWOL today and am just back online now. Thank you for complimenting my argument. Your Hitler argument only works so far, I think - it is true that he was elected in a nominally democratic election, but only as a result of his gangs of Brownshirts bringing chaos to the streets of Germany, disrupting political meetings, and beating up opponents and supporters of opponents. So, it was democracy of a sort, but not as we would know it.

I appreciate that you are not calling for a second referendum, but to nail that once and for all, I think I thought of a better analogy today. Ravishing Rattie made this point for me earlier today:

""…what should happen if it could be shown that Brexit would have significant adverse economic and political consequences."
And how would this be shown? More to the point, could it be possible for this to be shown?"

This is where I think your Court case analogy and this example differ. If a crime has been committed, then objectively someone must have committed it. A Court case might lead to the prosecution of the wrong person, but if better evidence comes along (e.g. DNA evidence) then it might be possible objectively to correct that miscarriage of justice and find the correct person guilty.

I don't think that can be said of your "...if it could be shown that Brexit would have significant adverse economic and political consequences." At the end of the day, politics is about political - subjective - judgements. We can all have an opinion, but that's all it is at the end of the day - subjective opinion. Many people think it has been shown that leaving the EU would have significant adverse economic and political consequences, but it's probably still the case that more people disagree. Who gets to say that the case has been made sufficiently for there to be a need for a second referendum to correct the "mistake" made in the first?

My own analogy is with the Climate Change Act, in respect of which (unlike the question of the merits or demerits of EU membership) I suspect we both agree repeal of said Act would be a good thing. Now let's suppose the highly unlikely scenario of Parliament again copping out, and deciding that because it's contentious (at least it should be!) the merits of the CCA should be put to a referendum. During the referendum, despite the might of the state, MSM, NGOs, financial organisations, BBC and Uncle Tom Cobbly telling us it would be disastrous to repeal the CCA, the people nevertheless vote by 52% to 48% to repeal it.

I'm shifting the facts of my hypothesis from what's happening with the EU, but only slightly. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth then bring a Court case to seek a declaration that the referendum was null and void, because the Referendum Act didn't specify that the Act was to be repealed if the people voted for repeal. Only Parliament can repeal it, and a majority of MPs (and Lords) are opposed to the repeal. The BBC and much of the MSM rush out interviews with loads of "experts" to tell us that the people have made a terrible mistake, they didn't understand what they were voting for, the science is far too complicated, and new evidence has come to light which demonstrates that repeal would be a disaster for Britain and for the world. The UN tells us that we will suffer dire consequences if we repeal the Act, because states which don't sign up to the climate change mantra cannot be allowed to be better off than states which do sign up to it.

Should there then be a second referendum?

Jan 20, 2017 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Minty, estimates were made with such confidence by the very people you place so much trust in before the referendum. It did not take too long for those estimates to unravel; is the pound really a weakening currency, or was it just over-valued? The Japanese kept their currency weak quite deliberately (not sure if they still have that policy active), and their economy… well, you tell us how well it has fared in the past 50 years.

Economies, both personal and corporate, will change; but, then they always have done; there is, I’m afraid, no true stability in the world – a point that the alarmists of the world will continue to use, to either spread more alarm, or to justify their own failures.

Personally, I look on a world with the UK free of the increasing constraints of the EU with a certain frisson of excitement; the much-vaunted “single market” will NOT be closed to us, but we will be free to engage with the many, many other markets of the world, without interference from those who truly want us harmed who we have allowed to hold sway over us.

Jan 20, 2017 at 8:47 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Mark. I didn't want last year's referenum, nor do I want any other. I consider that referenda do not work at national nor local levels. - they subvert our democratic system which essentially is that we vote for individuals that we believe will exercise their good judgment on our behalf. Even the party systems interfere with this ideal. My discussion used last year's referendum to question how far BH contributors would abide by a referendum decision regardless of any adverse outcome. I am not surprised but am disappointed by the response.

Jan 20, 2017 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll


We can leave it on a harmonious note. Neither of us seem to be fans of referendums. I believe that in a Parliamentary democracy, our Parliamentarians should do their job, not pass the buck. What has annoyed me about the EU referendum is:

1. Parliament passed the buck.

2. The Referendum Act is a very badly drafted piece of legislation (Parliament not doing its job again), which has facilitated the current strife.

3. Having messed it up, Parliament now says it wants to control the issue.

Jan 20, 2017 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

The Pound was strong, linked to North Sea Oil and it's Price on the world market. It's value for the Pound is diminishing with the Reserves of North Sea Oil.

Of course the Pound could now become a shale gas currency, and get stronger as the Euro weakens, especially if the Russians turn off the taps. The Dollar is likely to strengthen, based on fossil fuel reserves, probably along with the Ruble.

A strong currency is not necessarily an asset. Stability is, so that plans can be based on Reliable energy prices, not Unreliable Energy prices and availability.

Jan 20, 2017 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This was a thread about Donald Trump.

It has been well and truly derailed by a commenter with an apt pseudonym.

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

This was a thread about Donald Trump. It has been well and truly derailed by a commenter with an apt pseudonym.

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:36 PM | splitpin

This was a blog about Climate Science, until it was derailed/defunded/debagged by Trump.

I have just driven South from Basingstoke, Hampshire. The car's thermometer recorded a minimum -4°C, and Trump had only been sworn in for a few hours. Can we have some global warming now, please?

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The oligarchy is very displeased over Mr. Trump making it this far. The Russian gambit is a desperate one, lacking in actual evidence but full of opportunities for Allilnskyites to isolate, dehumanize and destroy.
Meanwhile President Trump is demonstrating that he probably understands how to play back on Allinsky tactics effectively, something no one resisting the oligarchy has accomplished before. His speech was inspirational, thoughtful, focused on America and Americans, and announced clearly his goal of having government return to actually serving Americans and their interests. His swift take over and excision of cliamte hype was an excellent signal: He grasped low hanging fruit and plucked it immediately and publicly.

Jan 21, 2017 at 3:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

"This was a thread about Donald Trump.
It has been well and truly derailed by a commenter with an apt pseudonym."

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:36 PM | splitpin

Guilty as charged. In mitigation I would argue that, if Splitpin cares to look, he/she/it will find that I did not begin the diversion into talking about the limits to which referendum results should be honoured. Furthermore, I have noted that discussion threads like this one undergo an evolution, they begin tightly focused, but by about page 5 or 6 (sometimes earlier, more rarely later) they run out of steam, lose their focus and commonly get diverted onto other topics that the regular contributors may take up. I have made it a practice not to introduce other topics until a discussion has reached this meandering phase.

If you feel a discussion has been diverted too soon take it up with the originator/moderator of the discussion. All too often now that person also becomes satiated with the subject and stops posting altogether. One of the best moderated discussions IMHO was conducted by Mark Hodgson (and he wasn't even moderator). I believe he was busy at the time and couldn't devote part of every day to it. Instead, every few days we got a long summary post that reviewed what had been discssed in his absence, gave his opinions and commonly offered suggestions as to how the topic mght progress. I suggest this was the "gold standard".

Splitpin, if you wanted more discussion upon Trump, why didn't you contribute this, give your opinion as to what might still be of interest, or comment upon a previous post, either in agreement or in opposition. Instead you complained and somewhat gratuitously blamed me. In so doing you potentially have begun yet another diversion on this discussion thread.

Might I also draw to your attention to the fact that other concurrent discussion threads have already, at tender young ages, been diverted away from their original topics into discussing the phenomenon that is Trump.


Jan 21, 2017 at 7:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

- the value of the pound has been decreasing since.... forever?

Brexit is no more than an unidentifiable blip on the chart of the pound's fall in value relative to the Euro.

10 year pound/euro chart

Blaming its fall on Brexit is like blaming today's weather on SUV's. Stupidity.

Jan 21, 2017 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterelement79