No confidence vote against TM as party leader

[transam]

The upper chamber

 

[Notch7]

The upper chamber

Theres some on here with not enough going on in the upper chamber

 

[Bodd]

Theres some on here with not enough going on in the upper chamber

Not getting any in their lower chamber either.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can't help wondering if, when the result of the ballot was announced, there wasn't a moment, no matter how short, or how slight, when TM thought to herself "Oh ****".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Did you know you are really patronising? Probably not.

Did you know that over and over and over and over and over again, with your pronouncements on what we should do about EU membership, and what is "wrong" with the EU, that you demonstrate staggering ignorance of the topics you are talking about? Probably not.

 

[durhamplumber]

Did you know that over and over and over and over and over again, with your pronouncements on what we should do about EU membership, and what is "wrong" with the EU, that you demonstrate staggering ignorance of the topics you are talking about? Probably not.

I know enough thankyou..hard brexit .asap.

 

[durhamplumber]

I know enough thankyou..hard brexit .asap.

Difference is,i do not pretend to be an expert,you do!,,and you are not!!!...lol

 

[Doppleganger]

Bodd's inference was abundantly clear that the EU are an "unelected lot" and that a government should consist solely of elected representatives.
John quite rightly countered that silly suggestion that any governing organisation is purely elected.
Thus the "suggestion" was an inferred suggestion.

He never said that.

I have explained very succinctly that Bodd never specifically stated that governments should consist solely of elected people. But I did elaborate that his inferred suggestion was absolutely obvious.
If you think I am wrong in deducing his inferred suggestion, please explain to the forum what you understand Bodd's incorrect assertions meant and why he made these incorrect assertions. Please also don't forget to mention that they were incorrect assertions. They were false either because Bodd was intentionally trying to mislead, or because Bodd was under a false impression.
I repeat them here for your perusal:

We have a bunch of unelected ****s over the water.

The EU lot who's unelected.

That lot over the water

So far, to counter the argument that the EU comprise unelected leaders, JohnD has suggested the archbishop is unelected as he has a seat in the upper house.
How jolly useful

John countered the argument with a long list of unelected parliamentarians. I also have added to the list.
My list included some unelected ministers in government. I am not sure if John's list did. I haven't checked, although there may be at least a leader of the House Spiritual. Maybe the Archbishop that you mentioned, I haven't checked. Although there are two Archbishops in the Lords.
So both John and I have demonstrated that not only is the UK Parliament made up of some unelected parliamentarians but even some high offices of government are of unelected people.
So while no-one is countering the argument that any government does have unelected people, it is jolly useful to dismiss the suggestion that the EU is either made up of solely unelected people, becuase it is plainly wrong, and to dismiss the argument that some of the EU consist of unelected people because that is undemocratic (or whatever inferred suggestion is intended) when the UK government and parliament also consists of unelected people.
Thus if anyone attempts to suggest that the EU is undemocratic because it has unelected people then the UK government is equally undemocratic. Therefore the suggestion that EU government is undemocratic, is rendered useless.

A sensible person might counter the argument by proving the the process of democracy in the EU, rather than proving there are some unelected people in a different parliament.

A sensible person would not attempt to suggest that the EU is undemocratic in the first place, because they have unelected people serving.
Therefore the nonsensical allegation would not need to countered.

The EUs attempt at democracy meant they ended up with a president they didnt want (Juncker).

Again your argument is neither correct, nor is your inferred suggestion accurate.
" Each new President is nominated by the European Council and formally elected by the European Parliament, for a five-year term. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission

Clearly your argument is incorrect. He was elected!
Also your inferred suggestion can be dismissed because the PM in UK is not elected by the people but by a majority of the party.
Therefore it is pointless to make a senseless argument about the legitimacy of the EU president, because exactly the same situation applies in the UK!
I would remind you that the UK parliament is considered to be the mother of all parliaments. Therefore what is acceptable in the UK must surely be equally acceptable in other parliaments.

 

[Doppleganger]

The upper chamber

The House of Lords is referred to as the Upper House or the Second Chamber, only because it existed before the Lower House.

To reiterate the other point:
"Most senior members of the Government are members of the House of Commons but there are ministers, along with two Cabinet members, in the House of Lords." https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/role/

At least one PM was in the House of Lords:
"The Marquess of Salisbury, who retired in 1902, was the last Prime Minister to lead a government from the Lords."
Although another was still in the Lords when he started as PM.
"The last peer to be called upon to serve as Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, renounced his peerage shortly after taking office in 1963.
Additionally:
Of the thirteen Prime Ministers who served during his (Anthony Trollope) lifetime (1815-1882), only four spent their entire premiership in the House of Commons, while seven governed from the Lords.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/prime-ministers-in-the-house-of-lords/

 

[Doppleganger]

So returning to the Brexit discussion again.
The argument, if any existed, that returning sovereignty to Parliament on the assumption that it is more democratic then the EU, is plainly misguided.

 

[Notch7]

have explained very succinctly that Bodd never specifically stated that governments

Himmie backtracking as usual.

Clearly your argument is incorrect. He was elected!

I never said he wasnt elected, you need to read posts more carefully beforr providing a counter argument.

And do your research. Juncker is not a president they wanted.

A sensible person would not attempt to suggest that the EU is undemocratic in the first place, because they have unelected people serving.

Why

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Difference is,i do not pretend to be an expert,you do!,,and you are not!!!...lol

Neither of us pretends to be that.

But one of us decides that he nevertheless knows more than people who are experts and advocates a course of action which would bring ruin on the country. And all to satisfy his ignorant and deluded wants.

 

[Doppleganger]

Clearly your argument is incorrect. He was elected!

I never said he wasnt elected,
Juncker is not a president they wanted.

On that basis, the current Tory government is a government that the electorate didn't want, TM is a PM that the Tory party didn't want, Corbyn is a leader that the Labour party (as a whole not just the PLP) didn't want, Brexit is what the people didn't want?
In fact just about every decision made throughout UK, EU and the rest of the world that was decided by voting is contrary to what the voters really wanted?

I think you are conflating the campaigns with the actual election.
Because the campaigns argue against one thing it does not mean that the election is not valid.
And before you start making comparisons with the Brexit referendum and the Peoples' vote, it is a different scenario. The argument for the peoples' vote is based on up-to-date understanding and genuine comprehension of the alternatives, in addition to the current gridlock in parliament.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you think I am wrong in deducing his inferred suggestion, please explain to the forum what you understand Bodd's incorrect assertions meant and why he made these incorrect assertions. Please also don't forget to mention that they were incorrect assertions. They were false either because Bodd was intentionally trying to mislead, or because Bodd was under a false impression.

Rather than us spinning our wheels in a meta-argument about what Bodd said, whey don't we all call on him to simply list the parts of the EU he objects to because they aren't elected, and alongside each show the closest equivalent UK part and whether it is elected here?

He must surely be able to do that, no?

 

[Doppleganger]

A sensible person would not attempt to suggest that the EU is undemocratic in the first place, because they have unelected people serving.
Therefore the nonsensical allegation would not need to countered.

Why

I thought it was obvious, and your question is in danger of becoming cyclical. Bodd's argument that the EU is undemocratic is made simply as a criticism of the EU in the supporting argument for Brexit, and the subsequent return of sovereignty to UK parliament, which is evidently also undemocratic. Therefore, the underlying reason for the allegation that EU is undemocratic is demolished:

So while no-one is countering the argument that any government does have unelected people, it is jolly useful to dismiss the suggestion that the EU is either made up of solely unelected people, because it is plainly wrong. It is only necessary to dismiss the argument that some of the EU consist of unelected people because that is undemocratic (or whatever inferred suggestion is intended) when the UK government and parliament also consists of unelected people.
Thus if anyone attempts to suggest that the EU is undemocratic because it has unelected people then the UK government is equally undemocratic. Therefore the suggestion that EU government is undemocratic, is rendered useless.