FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > If there was a new general election, who would you vote for and why?
If there was a new general election, who would you vote for and why?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Corbyn or May? I’m conflicted because although May has been doing bad during the whole fiasco about Brexit, Corbyn would probably just make it worse in my opinion. He’s talking about giving people shares of a businesses profit but he’s just assuming they will accept having to do that. They will just offshore and leave the UK . Also, why should people who’ve invested their own money in a business have their shares taken away and given to employees? " You say may has been doing bad during the brexit process but im pretty sure shes been awful pre election and during the election she was abysmal. And her record as home Secretary wasnt great either. I think its time someone else takes the reigns. So id be voting Corbyn. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision   | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision "So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!  | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!"Good point. | |||
   | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point."Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about. The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip | |||
"I'm really not sure if I should vote Labour, to keep the Tory BREXITers at bay, or vote Tory, to keep the Labour Corbynistas at bay. Probably end up voting LibDem as I have the last two times. I just wish I had a real choice. " . I have a simple rule of thumb. If your a hardened remainer vote lib Dems. If your a hardened Brexiter vote labour. I'm not particularly fused either way so I'm voting conservative as that's my nature. | |||
"None of us gets to vote (directly) for a Prime Minister. Its a peculiarity of our system that a majority of votes cast in each constituency almost always count for nought in determining the PM. " In theory that is true and we are meant to voter for the best local canditade but in these days of mass communication the fact is a large percentage vote for the leader of party.That is real life | |||
" It's a shame when you have to vote for a party that is shit because the alternative is worse." Very true but tnat is how I would vote | |||
| |||
"I've never looked at my local candidates for MP, I've always looked at the Political parties and their respective leaders in making my choice." As the majority do | |||
"UKIP, if at all possible, if not I hold my nose and vote Tory because I hate Corbyn’s stinking guts." Same, I've been voting Ukip since around 2004, but I did tactically vote Conservative at the last general election to make sure Brexit happened. Never trusted Labour to deliver Brexit and still don't. I also can't stand Corbyn either. | |||
 | |||
" It's a shame when you have to vote for a party that is shit because the alternative is worse." The only real argument any of our political parties ever put forward is "We're not as shit as the other lot"... And they're all liars | |||
" It's a shame when you have to vote for a party that is shit because the alternative is worse.Very true but tnat is how I would vote" This is why we need null voting. The principle of "one person, one vote" remains, but if there's no-one you actually want to vote for, you can use it to vote against the party you hate the most and cancel out someone else's vote for them. Of course, Stephen Fry would have to announce the results, in true QI fashion: "And this year's winners, on minus 3,842,934 votes is..." | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip "The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!  | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue. "brilliant my sentiments too. | |||
"I will vote for labour as the tory party will never be looking to improve my life. Labour will benefit me even if they increase my taxes. I am aware they will & i am willing to pay for what is needed Be it education policing health . " I agree fully there are so many great reasons to vote labour .My kids will be going to university in 5 to 6 years and labour will scrap tuition fees .Hes giving opportunties to working class people .The Tories wouldn't piss on the grafters in this country.The Tories have always been posh upperclass elites lining their pockets and have disdain for the plebs as they call the working class ,only a fool who would vote for those hooray henrys ... | |||
| |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue. "Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo. Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war"You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM? His employers are quite happy to make that clear. | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM?
His employers are quite happy to make that clear."So he’s sold all his shares in BAE? | |||
"I will vote for labour as the tory party will never be looking to improve my life. Labour will benefit me even if they increase my taxes. I am aware they will & i am willing to pay for what is needed Be it education policing health . I agree fully there are so many great reasons to vote labour .My kids will be going to university in 5 to 6 years and labour will scrap tuition fees .Hes giving opportunties to working class people .The Tories wouldn't piss on the grafters in this country.The Tories have always been posh upperclass elites lining their pockets and have disdain for the plebs as they call the working class ,only a fool who would vote for those hooray henrys ... "I guess I’m a double fool then I’m voting for the Conservatives if there is another general election and I’m going to university next year. I’m thinking about the impact business wise and economically, not how it will impact my own life. I think there is a bigger picture. | |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM?
His employers are quite happy to make that clear.
So he’s sold all his shares in BAE?"His employers own shares in BAE. If Philip May personally owns shares in BAE, then that is a matter for him and his conscience. Do you know what's in his personal portfolio? | |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM?
His employers are quite happy to make that clear."Also his employer? He’s a senior executive! Of a company that was in the panama papers and is known to use many tax avoidance schemes. I wouldn’t defend him too much it only gets worse. A Tory MP has admitted he’s TM’s most trusted advisor, no conflict there then? Lockheed Martin shares doing well these days aren’t they, no whose company owns 10% of Lockheed Martin | |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war"I understand what you are saying but life isnt fair. It never was and never will be. There will always be the rich vs the poor argument and that will never change. Every society and country in the world has a divide between the rich and the poor. Corbyn isn’t going to change anything. | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
I understand what you are saying but life isnt fair. It never was and never will be. There will always be the rich vs the poor argument and that will never change. Every society and country in the world has a divide between the rich and the poor. Corbyn isn’t going to change anything. "He can close that divide ever so slightly it’s better than just letting it get bigger, the. 10% own more than ever | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote! "If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want? | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want? "Interestingly at about the same time as the referendum the tory government passed a law making it only lawful to go on strike if a majority of the workers entitled to vote voted for it, as opposed to a majority of those voting. In other words those abstaining were counted as voting against strikes. Given only 37% of those entitled to vote voted to leave, if that rule had applied, leave would have lost in the referendum. It's a strange order of priorities that thinks a few workers deciding to lose a days pay requires a greater democratic mandate than the country leaving the EU. | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM?
His employers are quite happy to make that clear.
Also his employer? He’s a senior executive! Of a company that was in the panama papers and is known to use many tax avoidance schemes. I wouldn’t defend him too much it only gets worse. A Tory MP has admitted he’s TM’s most trusted advisor, no conflict there then? Lockheed Martin shares doing well these days aren’t they, no whose company owns 10% of Lockheed Martin "So the answer is "No, you have no idea if Philip May personally owns BAE shares' He is a Relationship Manager not a Senior Executive and both the May's have confirmed that they hold no offshore investments. | |||
"Probably liberal. Not due to Brexit, but basically because the Tories and labour have shown they cannot reign in their domestic fringe ideologies. I think Sir Vince is pragmatically minded, and would possibly stop a cluster fuck from becoming a worse cluster fuck." If we had an election under the current conditions I predict it would be probably the most two party election ever, with record low numbers voting for anyone other than the tories. This is because it's a vote which would be absolutely life and death for leavers and remainers. If Labour shows an openness to a third referendum then all the other alternatives to the tories will be squeezed out. You can vote for another party from Labour. But in this election particularly you should know that doing so would be part of the problem not the solution. You need to join in on the big argument and make a stand | |||
 | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want? "The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life. | |||
| |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life. "I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking | |||
| |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war
You do know that Phillip May isn't allowed to make any investment or handle finance since TM came to be PM?
His employers are quite happy to make that clear.
Also his employer? He’s a senior executive! Of a company that was in the panama papers and is known to use many tax avoidance schemes. I wouldn’t defend him too much it only gets worse. A Tory MP has admitted he’s TM’s most trusted advisor, no conflict there then? Lockheed Martin shares doing well these days aren’t they, no whose company owns 10% of Lockheed Martin
So the answer is "No, you have no idea if Philip May personally owns BAE shares'
He is a Relationship Manager not a Senior Executive and both the May's have confirmed that they hold no offshore investments."I believe that of course I do! They even say his job is to make sure their clients are happy, clients include BAE and Lockheed Martin! Im sure they are very happy, a bit like I’m 99% sure Corbyn is on the membership list of cnd I’m 99% sure mr May has a big fat vested interest in capital international, just like amazon say they pay all the taxes they have to, I don’t trust either company to tell the public the truth! If they are so honest why are they using tax avoidance? Or is it ethically ok to avoid tax using loopholes? Sure it wouldn’t be if Corbyn did it but there’s them double standards again | |||
| |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking "Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!? | |||
"Mrs Fudge or clueless corbyn ? What a choice .I'll definately pass " exactly not realy a choice I’ll also pass I think | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?"Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount? | |||
"UKIP, if at all possible, if not I hold my nose and vote Tory because I hate Corbyn’s stinking guts. Same, I've been voting Ukip since around 2004, but I did tactically vote Conservative at the last general election to make sure Brexit happened. Never trusted Labour to deliver Brexit and still don't. I also can't stand Corbyn either. " I voted Tory at the last general election, not only because I hate Corbyn, but also because I actually trusted May to deliver on BREXIT. I have to say that I’m not exactly filled with confidence by their actions thus far. Labour would be a lot worse. They would squeeze working people until we had absolutely nothing left, and they would give the lot to immigrants. | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?"The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate! | |||
"I’d love to be a sensible liberal (what used to be called an old fashioned conservative, I believe) but the rampant xenophobia and fuck anyone who doesn’t play the game behaviour of most of today’s neo-cons has me lurching towards Corbyn and his vision of a more equal society where we pay a little more tax and have the benefits of society which as we all know Margaret thatcher didn’t believe in. I think the vision that’s often projected on here of a Corbin labour win being the equivalent of Stalin’s Russia is so shallow and dangerous and it’s promulgated by the same people who told us all those lies about Brexit. Unfortunately people are lazy and like simple answers like it’s all the EU migrants fault that we don’t have jobs and that the EU takes all our money and gives it to places like Poland to make it more competitive and stop the poles leaving their own country. Now if as in the case of a company like Cadbury whose directors decided to cash in and sell to a giant American company (Kraft) on the advice of their American ceo and then the parent company decided to take advantage of the EU policy of development in Poland and Cadbury moved most of their production over there who is at fault? The EU for trying to make a better Europe or the Cadbury directors for taking the money? Morally I know what I think and when I look at how the poor are treated in America and compare it with Norway, as an example of a higher tax socialist-ish society I know where I would rather be " Probably my favourite post on the thread so far .Im often in Norway and apart from the weather the country is great very well run and everybody excepts the need for social responsibility .Though taxation . | |||
| |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!"If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people" | |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue.
Ahh much better millions using food banks, hard working families JAM because austerity took away so much. Fuck youth clubs let’s cut all that funding to help the kids, Sunday buses? No we’ve got to balance the books. Unemployment too high get everyone on zero hour contracts! The Tory utopia where the rich get richer, the middle classes are taxed to high heaven but promised you can be rich too, and the working classes are scum! But control the media and you control the points of view. Blame immigration it’s all their fault, and all the time the tories are borrowing more than labour did. Fuck a fair society, Thatchers longest standing legacy was to make everyone think they can be rich, whilst keeping the status quo.
Corbyns far from perfect but at least he doesn’t want to line his and his mates pockets, look up Phillip May and arms sales to Saudi Arabia! The British government are selling weapons to kill Yemeni kids and Mays husband is making a fortune out of it. Oh what a lovely war"Re: getting rid of the debt - Corbyn did a pretty good job of getting rid of the Labour Party's deficit, which had existed for decades. | |||
| |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!
If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people" "But I have already pointed out several times they didn't vote differently, your argument is all ifs and buts and has no substance. No bench mark figure was set but if had been a few thousand extra votes for leave I would agree with you but it was 1.2million extra votes, that for me is a substantial number of votes. | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!
If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people"
But I have already pointed out several times they didn't vote differently, your argument is all ifs and buts and has no substance. No bench mark figure was set but if had been a few thousand extra votes for leave I would agree with you but it was 1.2million extra votes, that for me is a substantial number of votes. "My argument is that it wasn't enough for me and, in my opinion, it in no way reflects the will of the people. The original referendum on whether to leave in 1975 was 67% to 32% to stay. That's a win of 35% to stay. It was a clear signal for a path to take as it was over 17% away from being a draw. The second referendum of 2016 was less than 1% away from being a draw. I think it's pretty clear that 17% is a mandate whilst less than 1% isn't | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!
If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people"
But I have already pointed out several times they didn't vote differently, your argument is all ifs and buts and has no substance. No bench mark figure was set but if had been a few thousand extra votes for leave I would agree with you but it was 1.2million extra votes, that for me is a substantial number of votes.
My argument is that it wasn't enough for me and, in my opinion, it in no way reflects the will of the people. The original referendum on whether to leave in 1975 was 67% to 32% to stay. That's a win of 35% to stay. It was a clear signal for a path to take as it was over 17% away from being a draw. The second referendum of 2016 was less than 1% away from being a draw. I think it's pretty clear that 17% is a mandate whilst less than 1% isn't"It wasn't 67% of the population though was it? So you are being somewhat underhand for 1975 you are happy to use % of people who voted but for 2016 you want to use % of population to base the result on. Have you thought about becoming a politician. Also voter turn out for 1975 was much lower at 64.6%. | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!
If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people"
But I have already pointed out several times they didn't vote differently, your argument is all ifs and buts and has no substance. No bench mark figure was set but if had been a few thousand extra votes for leave I would agree with you but it was 1.2million extra votes, that for me is a substantial number of votes.
My argument is that it wasn't enough for me and, in my opinion, it in no way reflects the will of the people. The original referendum on whether to leave in 1975 was 67% to 32% to stay. That's a win of 35% to stay. It was a clear signal for a path to take as it was over 17% away from being a draw. The second referendum of 2016 was less than 1% away from being a draw. I think it's pretty clear that 17% is a mandate whilst less than 1% isn't
It wasn't 67% of the population though was it? So you are being somewhat underhand for 1975 you are happy to use % of people who voted but for 2016 you want to use % of population to base the result on. Have you thought about becoming a politician. Also voter turn out for 1975 was much lower at 64.6%. "You're right. I just couldn't be bothered. Just doing a rushed look at the stats for the 1975 referendum and population size a little less than 10% of the population would have needed to vote for leave for it to have been a draw | |||
"Just listening to the radio, I'm liking what I'm hearing from the Labour conference. Heck, I may even vote for them because I agree with them That'd be a first. Corbyn finally seems free of any of the stink of Blair. The party really have turned a new page and finally seem to accept where they're at. I think a Corbyn win by a slender majority, just to keep him from doing anything too outlandish whilst in government, could be exactly what this country needs.
Wow! Finally! Someone with vision
So you say a slender majority would be a win for Corbyn in an election but you don't think a 4% majority is a win in a referendum! Strange logic!
Good point.
Hey! Don't blame me for our fucked up first past the post system where almost 55% of the people who voted at the last election get their opinion chucked in the bin and forgotten about.
The referendum was different. It needed to demonstrate a mandate for action. Do you seriously think that if leave had won solely due to Bert Scroggins from Clitheroe's vote they would've embarked on this crazy course of action? No. They did so partly because they figured 4% of the vote was a mandate (I disagree) and partly because it was politically expedient to try and resolve once and for all the rifts in the tory party in order to fend off the threat of ukip
The referendum was won by around 1.2 million votes that is a big enough mandate in my opinion!There was no need to worry about Bert Scroggins vote!
If about 600,000 leavers had voted to stay it would've been a draw. That's not even 1% of the UK population. There's got to be some kind of minimum number by which you can credibly claim a mandate. For some that number is 1 (Bert Scroggins). Personally I think it should be at bare minimum... Bare minimum 1% of the UK population. But honestly it really should be more like 5-10%. It's a policy thats going to impact the lives of the entire UK population. Don't you think it's right that it should be a policy a sizeable majority want?
The problem for you is 600000 didn't vote to stay did they, it's a bit like saying if 33, 43,27,10,1 &21 had come up instead of 32,42,26,9,2 &22 you would have won the lottery!! Face it you are just making up excuses because you didn't like the result, unfortunately that's life.
I'd say I'm making a perfectly legitimate point that, in order for a nation to pursue a bold new course on something that's going to effect the entire UK population, the mandate to pursue that course should at least be 1% of the UK population if not more. To my mind definitely more (5-10%). That strikes me as an excellent argument and one that we could comfortably inscribe into law to save us from making radical changes without them genuinely being the will of the people. That's not sour grapes. That's good honourable political thinking
Have just checked Uk population for 2018 and it's approximately 66million, there were 1.2million extra votes for leave so that is nearly 2% of the population. You have said there should be at least a 1% mandate, it's nearly 2% so more than meets your own criteria! What excuse will you come up with now!?:-
Not that I care as Brexit does my head in but a 1% swing means a tie so I think that was the point. I totally agree with the point about strikes though, the government force it to be 50% turnout, how many by elections get that amount?
The Eu referendum turnout was 72.2% so way above the 50% required for strikes.But there wasn't a 1% swing was there so there is no point in the argument, just another lame excuse Also the entire population is not eligible to vote, so when that is taken in to account it's a 4% mandate!
If 0.97% had voted differently it would've been a draw. I'm merely saying that doesn't even reach what I'd consider to be the absolute minimum benchmark for claiming to have a mandate of 1%. Even then, considering the scale of change being pushed through on the back of the vote I think it's eminently reasonable to suggest that the benchmark should be higher 5-10%. Less than 1% distinctly isn't "the will of the people"
But I have already pointed out several times they didn't vote differently, your argument is all ifs and buts and has no substance. No bench mark figure was set but if had been a few thousand extra votes for leave I would agree with you but it was 1.2million extra votes, that for me is a substantial number of votes.
My argument is that it wasn't enough for me and, in my opinion, it in no way reflects the will of the people. The original referendum on whether to leave in 1975 was 67% to 32% to stay. That's a win of 35% to stay. It was a clear signal for a path to take as it was over 17% away from being a draw. The second referendum of 2016 was less than 1% away from being a draw. I think it's pretty clear that 17% is a mandate whilst less than 1% isn't
It wasn't 67% of the population though was it? So you are being somewhat underhand for 1975 you are happy to use % of people who voted but for 2016 you want to use % of population to base the result on. Have you thought about becoming a politician. Also voter turn out for 1975 was much lower at 64.6%.
You're right. I just couldn't be bothered. Just doing a rushed look at the stats for the 1975 referendum and population size a little less than 10% of the population would have needed to vote for leave for it to have been a draw "Exactly! It doesn't look as good now as it did a few minutes a go! But it doesn't really matter as no % figure was set to validate the result. | |||
" They will just offshore and leave the UK . " Wasn't that what people said would happen if people voted to leave the EU? | |||
| |||
"Corbyn or May? I’m conflicted because although May has been doing bad during the whole fiasco about Brexit, Corbyn would probably just make it worse in my opinion. He’s talking about giving people shares of a businesses profit but he’s just assuming they will accept having to do that. They will just offshore and leave the UK . Also, why should people who’ve invested their own money in a business have their shares taken away and given to employees? " None id be voting snp | |||
"Exactly! It doesn't look as good now as it did a few minutes a go! But it doesn't really matter as no % figure was set to validate the result. "The reason why I didn't bother is because it didn't make a jot of difference to my argument. Just short of 10% of the population is clearly a far more credible mandate than less than 1%. I'm curious. Suppose there was a vote to scrap the NHS do you think there should be a minimum benchmark either side should win by for it to be acted upon? Would you agree that, say, 5% more of the UK population would need to have voted for one side over the other before considering it a result that should be acted upon? If so, regardless of the fact that this didn't happen in this referendum, you would concede it should have been done. If you recognise this, you must recognise that the result isn't really a credible mandate for action. But you're happy to ignore the injustice of pushing through something there isn't really a credible mandate for because the result was what you wanted | |||
| |||
| |||
"How can you compare a minor win of a referendum to a minor win general election. If we use that logic then we should be 52% out of the EU and 48% in." some would argue this is what chequers is !!! | |||
" Probably my favourite post on the thread so far .Im often in Norway and apart from the weather the country is great very well run and everybody excepts the need for social responsibility .Though taxation ." Plus when North Sea Gas was found they did something sensible with it by creating a sovereign wealth fund rather than flogging it all off to the likes of Shell and NO in order to rescue a political career... People often underestimate the impact of that discovery. That and the Falklands saved Maggie | |||
 | |||
"Exactly! It doesn't look as good now as it did a few minutes a go! But it doesn't really matter as no % figure was set to validate the result.
The reason why I didn't bother is because it didn't make a jot of difference to my argument. Just short of 10% of the population is clearly a far more credible mandate than less than 1%.
I'm curious. Suppose there was a vote to scrap the NHS do you think there should be a minimum benchmark either side should win by for it to be acted upon? Would you agree that, say, 5% more of the UK population would need to have voted for one side over the other before considering it a result that should be acted upon?
If so, regardless of the fact that this didn't happen in this referendum, you would concede it should have been done. If you recognise this, you must recognise that the result isn't really a credible mandate for action. But you're happy to ignore the injustice of pushing through something there isn't really a credible mandate for because the result was what you wanted "Be honest you didn't do it because you wanted the % figure to look better than it was and add weight to your argument!The fact that you knew you had done it speaks volumes and makes you appear even more under hand. I didn't set the rules of the vote, no % figure was set, the rules were the same for both sides it was a fair vote. | |||
" . Plus when North Sea Gas was found they did something sensible with it by creating a sovereign wealth fund rather than flogging it all off to the likes of Shell and NO in order to rescue a political career... People often underestimate the impact of that discovery. That and the Falklands saved Maggie" Norway was very sensible. They regarded the revenue from the North Sea as a rainy day fund and invested it. The UK on the other hand treated it is a revenue stream for the current account, and used the proceeds to pay for the UB40s associated with the destruction of the country's nationalised industry and tax cuts. Norway now sits on a huge pile of cash, whereas the UK sits on a huge liability - the cost of decommissioning the North Sea platforms. Through some jiggery-pokery involving the tax system, it will be the taxpayer who pays the costs here. £40bn and more. Shetland did something similar to Norway when they allowed the oil giants to build their petrochemical plants on the islands. In effect, a tax on every barrel of oil brought ashore that has gone into a fund to sustain the islands when the oil runs out. | |||
" . Plus when North Sea Gas was found they did something sensible with it by creating a sovereign wealth fund rather than flogging it all off to the likes of Shell and NO in order to rescue a political career... People often underestimate the impact of that discovery. That and the Falklands saved Maggie Norway was very sensible. They regarded the revenue from the North Sea as a rainy day fund and invested it. The UK on the other hand treated it is a revenue stream for the current account, and used the proceeds to pay for the UB40s associated with the destruction of the country's nationalised industry and tax cuts. Norway now sits on a huge pile of cash, whereas the UK sits on a huge liability - the cost of decommissioning the North Sea platforms. Through some jiggery-pokery involving the tax system, it will be the taxpayer who pays the costs here. £40bn and more. Shetland did something similar to Norway when they allowed the oil giants to build their petrochemical plants on the islands. In effect, a tax on every barrel of oil brought ashore that has gone into a fund to sustain the islands when the oil runs out. " Half of Norways soverign wealth funds covers state pensions . The fund posted a return of $131 billion last year and now as climate change becomes more pressing they are talking of diversifying out of fossil fuels. | |||
"Exactly! It doesn't look as good now as it did a few minutes a go! But it doesn't really matter as no % figure was set to validate the result.
The reason why I didn't bother is because it didn't make a jot of difference to my argument. Just short of 10% of the population is clearly a far more credible mandate than less than 1%.
I'm curious. Suppose there was a vote to scrap the NHS do you think there should be a minimum benchmark either side should win by for it to be acted upon? Would you agree that, say, 5% more of the UK population would need to have voted for one side over the other before considering it a result that should be acted upon?
If so, regardless of the fact that this didn't happen in this referendum, you would concede it should have been done. If you recognise this, you must recognise that the result isn't really a credible mandate for action. But you're happy to ignore the injustice of pushing through something there isn't really a credible mandate for because the result was what you wanted
Be honest you didn't do it because you wanted the % figure to look better than it was and add weight to your argument!The fact that you knew you had done it speaks volumes and makes you appear even more under hand.
I didn't set the rules of the vote, no % figure was set, the rules were the same for both sides it was a fair vote. "Simple question. If there was a vote on scrapping the NHS do you think a % should be set for it or not? If so what would you say that % should be for it to be a credible mandate to dismantle the NHS? If it's more than the referendum achieved why do you think one thing for one important vote and not for another? Is it just a case of tough titty? No changing the subject or diverting to shirk the question | |||
"Nicola Sturgeon " best politician in the uk | |||
 | |||
"Exactly! It doesn't look as good now as it did a few minutes a go! But it doesn't really matter as no % figure was set to validate the result.
The reason why I didn't bother is because it didn't make a jot of difference to my argument. Just short of 10% of the population is clearly a far more credible mandate than less than 1%.
I'm curious. Suppose there was a vote to scrap the NHS do you think there should be a minimum benchmark either side should win by for it to be acted upon? Would you agree that, say, 5% more of the UK population would need to have voted for one side over the other before considering it a result that should be acted upon?
If so, regardless of the fact that this didn't happen in this referendum, you would concede it should have been done. If you recognise this, you must recognise that the result isn't really a credible mandate for action. But you're happy to ignore the injustice of pushing through something there isn't really a credible mandate for because the result was what you wanted
Be honest you didn't do it because you wanted the % figure to look better than it was and add weight to your argument!The fact that you knew you had done it speaks volumes and makes you appear even more under hand.
I didn't set the rules of the vote, no % figure was set, the rules were the same for both sides it was a fair vote.
Simple question. If there was a vote on scrapping the NHS do you think a % should be set for it or not? If so what would you say that % should be for it to be a credible mandate to dismantle the NHS? If it's more than the referendum achieved why do you think one thing for one important vote and not for another? Is it just a case of tough titty?
No changing the subject or diverting to shirk the question "You are the one changing the subject not me! | |||
"The fact is that we were all misled about brexit by either the sabre rattling xenophobic leavers or the sit back and watch the shit fly retainers. The truth is TreSemme has been dealt a shit hand by one young Etonian with too much self regard and is having her heels bitten by another one who likes to project his English eccentricity all the while making overtures to his American chums with no care except for his desire for power, and please don’t get me started on that freak Rees-Mogg! Labour were all the while caught up in a power struggle and Corbyn has focussed on that and won while avoiding Brexit so he doesn’t have to catch the flak. The really sad thing about all of this is that the majority of leave voters were over 45 and gave no consideration for the future for our kids. I actually have no idea whether Brexit will work or not but I have huge doubts about the legacy we are storing up for the future and I still don’t think the result was fair as I consider myself a European rather than a little Englander. Now you can all get your knickers in a knot and tell me to fuck off to Europe "If there was a like thing on Fab I would give this a thumbs up You have my vote mate | |||
"Anybody but Jeremy the guy is just a blithering buffoon who would fuck the country till it bled. The rest don't inspire me but that guy is a racist and the people backing him are disturbed individuals. And besides I don';t want t ogive up my car paint the house grey and call everyone comrade while waiting at the half mile bus cue. " | |||
"In reality when voting now it has become a Presidential type election. As a number have said on Here Corbyn or May. I have voted Labour all my life but I do not like what is happening with the party. In short I find most of the Politicians bereft of any substance they are not consistent and take no notice of what is going on around them.We all want to prosper, be safe and have futures for our kids. Three basic elements. Which party has these I don't know anymore. " Very sound thinking | |||
