Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It wasn't right for Cameron to organise a referendum on the basis of 36% of the popular vote.
It wasn't right to make the ballot a Yes/No without graduations in between. E.g. there's not reasons we cant have Norway style treaty, but that has been ruled out "because reasons".
It wasn't right to treat the referendum as binding when it wasn't..
If another election happens and the Tories lose, they will still likely hold more seats than Corbyn. For all his big talk about the people having spoken, and how his party should prepare for government, his showing was still utterly terrible when you looked at the figures. Gaining the barest handful of seats and remaining seventy odd behind was not a good result. If we run another election and the Tories shed twenty seats to him, they'll still have a damn sight more than him, and form the subsequent minority government. That would be an even worse result than what we have now. You think the country is running badly? Wait until it stops running at all.
Possibly, but he was hamstrung at the start because he looked weak. That likely still had an influence at the election. However he now looks much more commanding than May does and the important swing voters might decide that May is just a joke and back Corbyn who looks stronger each day. A large part depends on where the votes turn up though. The Tories have only 800,000 votes more than Labour (approx. 2%), but the deck is stacked in favour of the Tories in that they need to work less to get more seats. Labour need to get a larger vote share than Tories to gain the same number of seats because of the corrupted system we have. However it's not inconceivable that a significant swing could happen. I would actually eye Scotland as where that could happen. At the last election Tories presented themselves as the only unionist opposition because of Labour's apparent weak leadership. Now that is changed I wonder how many voted Tory just to keep SNP out will now swing back to Labour now they look stronger.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Kilkrazy wrote: If you've got a complaint, press the yellow triangle.
I've got lots of complaints about the UK Government, can I use the yellow triangle?
On an aside and I see Priti Patel has resigned. So our weak PM has again managed to squirm her way out of doing anything at all to control problems in her own party. Basically Priti will have got what she wanted, a clear CV. A firing would have blotted her copy book for any future roles -give it 6-12 months and she'll be back in. Unless we vote her out of course (here's hoping).
Here are some of her voting / statement records:-
Voted against gay marriage
Campaigned against the smoking ban
Advocated for bringing back the death penalty in the past
Lovely person to have in politics....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/08 21:09:38
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
I had a tiny bit of hope.
Just a little bit.
I'm always amazed about these statements (and DINLT states the same thing). We had a weak and poor government before the referendum that DC couldn't manage and put forward a decent argument against (and there is no question he tried to use Project Fear) when there are lots of arguments for staying in the EU and very few, non-idealistic, ones for leaving. However it's almost as like some people think that once we voted to leave the UK government would have an epiphany and then become well considered, adaptable and strong politicians! Almost as if they were all schizophrenic and had a Wrexit personality just waiting to get out.
Of course it was going to go badly because we have a poor government (noting we vote the fools in) - you knew what the government was like when you voted Leave, so why was there even any thinking that it wouldn't become a total shambles?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
When you say support, exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting they were giving them weapons, going on raids or blowing up hotels with the Tories in?
The irony with Priti though is that she and her family are immigrants themselves and fled Uganda from persecution, yet she now wants to reduce immigration and stop people coming here. I would suggest that if the same policies applied when her parents fled then she wouldn't actually be here at all and would have been thrown in a containment cell/immigration centre and then sent home. You have got to wonder what her parents think of her views.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/08 21:22:38
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Safe seats for Tories became marginals, and they’ve done nothing to win voters since as a party.
The Tories ran an absolutely cack-handed election last time. They still beat Corbyn by fifty six seats. And Corbyn would need more than that to have a majority.
You seriously think that in the space of a bare handful of months, the public will suddenly swing en-masse behind our good pal Corbyn? That he'll somehow pull the sixty five seats he needs out of a hat? And furthermore, that even if he manages to do that and scrape a bare majority, that he won't be afflicted by the exact same scenario May is currently in? Where you're unable to get any kind of reform or controversial policy through because you rely on a bare handful of seats and the whims of a few backbenchers?
Pull the other one. The likely scenario is that we sit here with both Tories and Labour at around 280 seats, no-one has a working majority, and we end up rudderless for another six months whilst both parties endlessly campaign. In the best case scenario (for you), we get a Labour Government that can barely pass a motion to adjourn for dinner, much like the current one.
Possibly, but he was hamstrung at the start because he looked weak. That likely still had an influence at the election.
That was offset by the shambles of a Tory campaign (if you could even call it that). May didn't want to do debates, public appearances, campaign trail, or indeed, any aspect of actually trying to get votes at all. Corbyn'll have a minimally better appearance this time around in the media, but the Tories will actually make a fight of it this time. I still expect that they'll shed seats, but nowhere near enough to give him a solid majority. It has to be remembered that half the Parliamentary Labour party hates him. Even if he wins a slim majority, he'll have no luck at all getting through any kind of radical reforms when all it needs is a dozen New Labour MP's (of which there are still well over a hundred) acting in concert to scotch him.
The Tories have only 800,000 votes more than Labour (approx. 2%), but the deck is stacked in favour of the Tories in that they need to work less to get more seats. Labour need to get a larger vote share than Tories to gain the same number of seats because of the corrupted system we have.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/11/08 22:17:22
If there's another GE, surely there's no chance that May will be leading the Tories. And if they have even an ounce of sense, Labour will be aiming for a coalition rather than outright majority.
That was offset by the shambles of a Tory campaign (if you could even call it that). May didn't want to do debates, public appearances, campaign trail, or indeed, any aspect of actually trying to get votes at all. Corbyn'll have a minimally better appearance this time around in the media, but the Tories will actually make a fight of it this time. I still expect that they'll shed seats, but nowhere near enough to give him a solid majority. It has to be remembered that half the Parliamentary Labour party hates him. Even if he wins a slim majority, he'll have no luck at all getting through any kind of radical reforms when all it needs is a dozen New Labour MP's (of which there are still well over a hundred) acting in concert to scotch him.
True Mays campaign was dreadful. The question is who would actually take over from her. Pretty much everyone is now scarred by some blunder. The Tories also have a growing problem - the only group that votes for Tories more than Labour are the elderly. Tories are effectively propped up by an aging and dying population (one could argue most of the government is geriatrics either in mind or body too). Every group under 60 votes for Labour in the majority. Eventually that will swing against the Tories. They do recognise this to some extent but fortunately their approach appears to be to alienate as many younger voters as possible.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
Yes Labour did have the opportunity to change the voting method and stuck with the idea that they would be loved forever more. It should have been changed then and should be changed now. The clamour is getting louder on this. There are more petitions, more arguments on the case for PR. I think eventually it will become inevitable. I would expect that the next minority government with Labour/LDs/SNP are likely to implement it as it would then effectively condemn the Tories to being permanently in opposition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Vocal support. Acting as cheerleaders mostly. John McDonnell in particular.
That doesn't mean Labour actively supported them then now does it? One person who now regrets what he said does not make Labour IRA spokespeople
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/08 22:40:29
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
Not quite what we're discussing. We're talking about perceived imbalances to the system, the idea the system is 'loaded' in some regard.
In reality, every party has heartlands, areas where they do well, and areas where they do poorly. Places that rarely change the result that they deliver due to a particular combination of population size, wealth, social strata, etcetc. When a party has more of them, they loftily disregard the issue, because it works to their benefit, helps to supplement their majorities, and means that they have to work that little bit less hard to convince the swinging areas. They can sit down and say 'Well, we know we'll win these seats', and then calculate their campaign strategy and focus accordingly.
Scotland was such a place for the Labour Party. There have been accusations that in the latest boundaries review, the Tories have been pushing to try and make a few seats more advantageous for them. But then again, the Labour Party has has an inbuilt advantage to the way the Inner London seats are drawn up for quite some time. You'll note that the issue of redrawing those lines more accurately rarely made it into their most recent calls on the subject. Heck, the Labour Party is still officially the only party to actually try and rig the system through very clear official gerrymandering (back in 1969/70).
The lesson to be learnt here is that advantages/disadvantages in the system exist for any given party depending on which part of it you choose to focus on, and all parties will bleat about something that doesn't work for them, and smugly ignore those which do.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
I had a tiny bit of hope.
Just a little bit.
I'm always amazed about these statements (and DINLT states the same thing). We had a weak and poor government before the referendum that DC couldn't manage and put forward a decent argument against (and there is no question he tried to use Project Fear) when there are lots of arguments for staying in the EU and very few, non-idealistic, ones for leaving. However it's almost as like some people think that once we voted to leave the UK government would have an epiphany and then become well considered, adaptable and strong politicians! Almost as if they were all schizophrenic and had a Wrexit personality just waiting to get out.
Of course it was going to go badly because we have a poor government (noting we vote the fools in) - you knew what the government was like when you voted Leave, so why was there even any thinking that it wouldn't become a total shambles?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
When you say support, exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting they were giving them weapons, going on raids or blowing up hotels with the Tories in?
The irony with Priti though is that she and her family are immigrants themselves and fled Uganda from persecution, yet she now wants to reduce immigration and stop people coming here. I would suggest that if the same policies applied when her parents fled then she wouldn't actually be here at all and would have been thrown in a containment cell/immigration centre and then sent home. You have got to wonder what her parents think of her views.
I'd argue against that. The government was far from weak prior to the referendum. It was a strong Tory majority, Cameron was an established leader, the cabinet was established, labour was too busy trying to cut its own nose off to spite it's face and things generally seemed to be on the rise.
Hindsight is annoying because you can look back and see where things went wrong. I think having a referendum was generally a good idea, it helped to curb UKIP, and they have since fallen into nothingness as their job is now completely and it would have been a good bat to beat people back into line with. Again, I reiterate the point that if the referendum was the other way, you wouldn't be arguing that there should be another referendum because we didn't know what we were voting for.
The problem is that he really misjudged the situation, the same way the US misjudged Trump.
I think there is so much of a gap between citizen and government, that people are willing to do anything to get their voices heard. UKIP wasn't peeing in the wind, they were telling people "look we know you've had problems, you've lost your jobs and we can't control the situation, we need to regain control." Whereas the Remainers were basically declaring "anyone who votes Brexit is a bigot, and idiot or a racist." And you can't deny it, I've seen plenty of people insult Brexiters as being idiots or racists, we've had entire studies done showing that Brexiters are less educated etc etc.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
welshhoppo wrote: Whereas the Remainers were basically declaring "anyone who votes Brexit is a bigot, and idiot or a racist." And you can't deny it, I've seen plenty of people insult Brexiters as being idiots or racists, we've had entire studies done showing that Brexiters are less educated etc etc.
This thread is a microcosm of that wider phenomenon.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
Not quite what we're discussing. We're talking about perceived imbalances to the system, the idea the system is 'loaded' in some regard.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 08:11:57
