Amber Rudd Vs ???

[Ric.ror]

It would appear Ms Rudd is to represent the torrid at the next televised debate. Who should Labour nominate? Could be fun if it's Ms Abbot

[naomi24]

Krom, actually, I thought there was a bit more to you than your last response which is completely unjustified. You asked me a question. I answered it.

[jim360]

"You don’t want Brexit at all..."
True.

"... so whatever they do won’t suit you."

Possibly true -- but hey, at least I can try to shape it as far as is possible (which isn't a lot when I'm just one voice in millions).

"Perhaps it’s time to accept reality and get over it."

I accepted the reality of Brexit a long time ago. But I don't have to "get over it", in the sense of not bothering to stand up for my position. That's how democracy works. The majority should end up winning, but the minority should never be asked to shut up.

[jim360]

I think kromo's question was rhetorical, in the face of someone who described their political vision as perfect and untarnished.

It seems that you don't do subtlety, much. It's possible for people to disagree with you without having blinkers on or something.

[naomi24]

Jim, you don't have to shut up. For what good it will do you, carry on moaning if that's what you want to do.

[naomi24]

Jim, // someone who described their political vision as perfect and untarnished. //

Who said that?

[jim360]

You did:

"[Not] here.... just 20/20 vision unclouded by red mist."

Which I just paraphrased a little.

[naomi24]

You paraphrased a little? Come off it Jim, I said nothing of the sort! That's really quite shameful.

[jim360]

20/20 is a synonym for perfect, so I think that's a fair enough replacement. And "untarnished" and "unclouded" are also synonymous. So no, it's not shameful. Not in the slightest.

[naomi24]

Jim, I disagree with you. That was utterly wrong, and actually quite spiteful. I suffer under no delusions. Unlike those who champion Labour regardless of what they intend to do, either because their dear old dad supported Labour or because they harbour some idealistically impossible notion of a ‘fair’ society, I am honest enough to recognise that one is far more flawed than the other.

[Kromovaracun]

"I have 20-20 vision and suffer under no delusions."

"How do you know?"

"Because I have 20-20 vision and suffer under no delusions about my 20-20 vision and the delusions under which I do not suffer."

[jim360]

I literally just quoted your post verbatim and you're still persisting in the notion that saying you have "20/20 vision" isn't the same as saying you have perfect vision? And then, essentially, repeat that boast in the last post you made? "I suffer under no delusions." -- which is, itself, a delusion. We're all deluded about something or other. You're no exception to that.

[agchristie]

I wonder how many voters give Mrs May their backing not because they give her and the party's policies strong backing, but because the alternative is too unbearable to contemplate.

We talk about the need to have a strong opposition in politics to hold the current to account, but I suspect there will be many voters who aren't really giving the ringing endorsement to Mrs May that she is urging.

If Mrs May just avoids a hung parliament, which would be disastrous too, then the country will not have been persuaded to the extent she craved and that must surely gnaw away at the Government.

[naomi24]

Jim, saying that I have 20/20 vision doesn’t imply that my vision works only one way. Unlike those who pick out, for example, Labour’s marvellous plans to renationalise the railways, but completely ignore what comes with it, I see flaws on both sides. Now do you want to get on with this discussion or do you want to carry on nit-picking?