BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

awavey said:

rick_chasey said:

awavey said:

I couldnt believe it at work all I said was the well the stockmarket have reacted positively to the result,33bn apparently added to it by the end of the day the pound increasing in value, and I suddenly got jumped on by a colleague for not understanding well there are increasing foodbanks and clearly I hated poor people for being so shallow that I was only interested in capitalism outcomes...yeah who I voted for is between me and my maker, but when the left get off their high horse blaming everyone else for this kind of stuff,maybe theyll command a majority view in this country.

Wouldn’t you agree each party tends to look after certain socio economic strata and the Tories really don’t look after those at the bottom?

I mean, the increase in homelessness, for example, is really easily attributed to austerity. There’s a direct causal correlation there.

You may think it’s not really a concern of yours, and that’s entirely fair - as you say, you are absolutely entitled to vote however you want for whatever reason you want - but, and I mean this as an honest question - does the whole worse off doing worse not bother you?

Id say that ultimately sums up my point though, people choose who to vote for a variety of reasons but there is no moral superior choice, someone who votes "not Labour" shall we say rather than just Tory, doesnt care any less about those things than someone who votes for Labour, of course they care, unless you're a sociopath, you care that people are in poverty,the homeless,the NHS and want to see things done to fix them, but they simply believe theres a different way to tackle it.

and its that aspect where you have left leaning supporters,note I dont say Labour,who believe they are morally superior because of who they vote for, and yet whilst claiming they have total empathy with everyone will then describe anyone who votes differently as being this selfish uncaring group and sneer at them for it for "not getting it"

I genuinely heard this conversation in the pub yesterday said without any hint of irony, or self reflection either describing how people voted Tory in traditional Labour heartlands "well THOSE people dont even read the Guardian..." and I havent added the emphasis, thats how it was said, as if the type of newspaper you read makes you a better person.

We've had a bit of "you can't be a real supporter because..." on here an' all.

coopster_the_1st

awavey said:

and its that aspect where you have left leaning supporters,note I dont say Labour,who believe they are morally superior because of who they vote for, and yet whilst claiming they have total empathy with everyone will then describe anyone who votes differently as being this selfish uncaring group and sneer at them for it for "not getting it"

The above perfectly describes most who reside on here.

I get lots of pleasure that these twats keep getting their arses handed to them by the great British public time and time again.

Three days later, I still have a warm glow from being proud of this great country doing to right thing on the 12th December. That exit poll was a thing of beauty

rjsterry

I can't quite believe this is a real story as opposed to the Telegraph mocking the DUP.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/14/build-bridge-scotland-bolster-union-dup-urges-boris-johnson/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Pross

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

why does old labour want to distance itself from a government that got itself re-elected twice?

Because winning is intrinsically impure. If you win, that must mean that at least some of the enemy voted for you, so you are a traitor.

Fair enough. In which case, they are consigned to history.
Who fills the void and how?

There can't be many easier jobs than being an opposition MP with a safe seat. It must be far more enjoyable than being in power and having to deliver your ideology with the country criticising every move. Other than ego I've never understood the desperation to be in power.

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

awavey said:

and its that aspect where you have left leaning supporters,note I dont say Labour,who believe they are morally superior because of who they vote for, and yet whilst claiming they have total empathy with everyone will then describe anyone who votes differently as being this selfish uncaring group and sneer at them for it for "not getting it"

The above perfectly describes most who reside on here.

I get lots of pleasure that these twats keep getting their arses handed to them by the great British public time and time again.

Three days later, I still have a warm glow from being proud of this great country doing to right thing on the 12th December. That exit poll was a thing of beauty

My sense of both relief and joy on seeing the exit poll was great. Ditto waking up on Friday morning to see it confirmed. That the Conservatives got their mathematical majority when they took Bolsover off Dennis Skinner was the icing on the Cake.

As people's votes go, it was a very good one.

webboo

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

So I’m not alone in thinking it was a wrong thing to do, however you dress it up.

kingstongraham

Justice for the 52%! Come on Boris, give the people the second referendum they voted for!

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

sungod

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

shortfall

sungod said:

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

In the ballots that actually mattered the people voted to leave the EU, first in a referendum and then they returned a Conservative government with a promise to enact their wishes at the heart of their manifesto with an absolutely stonking majority. The parties and most of the individual MPs who wanted to renege on or overturn the referendum result were pretty much annihilated. If you genuinely believe that unpicking the results in a away that suits your agenda and blaming the electoral system demonstrates that a majority of the electorate want to remain in the EU then may I say you're in denial?

Stevo_666

sungod said:

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

Not sure how anyone can count Labour as having a view on the subject. Let's divvy them up 50/50 to both camps...

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

Stevo_666

shortfall said:

sungod said:

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

In the ballots that actually mattered the people voted to leave the EU, first in a referendum and then they returned a Conservative government with a promise to enact their wishes at the heart of their manifesto with an absolutely stonking majority. The parties and most of the individual MPs who wanted to renege on or overturn the referendum result were pretty much annihilated. If you genuinely believe that unpicking the results in a away that suits your agenda and blaming the electoral system demonstrates that a majority of the electorate want to remain in the EU then may I say you're in denial?

I agree, but its now a largely theoretical argument given that we are almost certain to leave soon.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

You felt you needed that advantage. I can understand why. Even under Corbyn , the Labour vote share has fallen like a stone from 30.6% in the election before Corbyn to 32.1% now.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

Not sure how anyone can count Labour as having a view on the subject. Let's divvy them up 50/50 to both camps...

You missed their second referendum pledge? They were very clear about it haha

kingstongraham

We've had the two votes now, and it's one all. Best of three?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

funny how people bleating about the will of the people don't worry about how people voted

the will of the people was for remain/people's vote

yet the rigged electoral system means the lying losers will screw the country, on the plus side it'll be the leave voters who proportionately are screwed the most

roll on the higher rate tax cut

Not sure how anyone can count Labour as having a view on the subject. Let's divvy them up 50/50 to both camps...

You missed their second referendum pledge? They were very clear about it haha

I'm talking about remain vs leave.

But its a theoreticalargument now as we will be leaving regardless of what you think should have happened.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

We've had the two votes now, and it's one all. Best of three?

Nope, not going to happen. And you know that.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

So my question is just why is new labour such a toxic legacy?
Iraq war is Blair’s personal legacy as a leader rather than a party issue.
And I’m not interested in the ‘Global’ financial crisis. I mean why does old labour want to distance itself from a government that got itself re-elected twice?

Because Labour was set up to represent organised labour in the political arena. Momentum see Blair and co as having hijacked the party and having gained power did nothing to progress the organised labour movement. As said previously they would rather risk losing in their attempt to gain a mandate to do what they think is right.

You may not agree with them but it is important to understand their thinking.

In basic terms get down the bookie and put your boat on Rebecca Long Bailey.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

We've had the two votes now, and it's one all. Best of three?

Nope, not going to happen. And you know that.

I'll try writing (joke) after obvious jokes.

thecycleclinic

There is too much bleating about the result. The electoral system is not proportional but it is what we have and parties ha e to work with it constraints. My own party got a kicking in number of seats and that's not bad thing as it means renewal time. It has to wake up to brexit is a thing that not going to be undone and remember that parties name mean voter choice. If you want voters to vote for you have policies that matter to them. PR probably wont work in the over centralised system we have. PR would work well in a more devolved system of government with english regions.a d a possible federal system for the 4 nations. That's not popular so I see know easy way to change the voting system.

morstar

thecycleclinic said:

PR probably wont work in the over centralised system we have. PR would work well in a more devolved system of government with english regions.a d a possible federal system for the 4 nations. That's not popular so I see know easy way to change the voting system.

I 100% don't think we're getting PR anytime soon but I don't agree that it can't work. It doesn't work at present as any incumbent government seems prepared to accept that they will face a period out of government but once they are back in power they will have disproportionate representation as now.
So what we have is a clear direction that represent the largest single entity as opposed to the majority. If we had PR, the parties would realise they are never likely to see more than mid 40's % share and would learn to govern in a PR system. It would probably provide more incremental government.
How many businesses operate successfully by lurching from one direction to another?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you want to claim some credit for this when it's clear that the result is entirely the party's own doing.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you want to claim some credit for this when it's clear that the result is entirely the party's own doing.

That was the aim.

I know the concept of competion may be something that youre not familiar with.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

We've had the two votes now, and it's one all. Best of three?

Nope, not going to happen. And you know that.

I'll try writing (joke) after obvious jokes.

I wasn't prepared for humour on this thread...

thecycleclinic

morstar said:

thecycleclinic said:

PR probably wont work in the over centralised system we have. PR would work well in a more devolved system of government with english regions.a d a possible federal system for the 4 nations. That's not popular so I see know easy way to change the voting system.

I 100% don't think we're getting PR anytime soon but I don't agree that it can't work. It doesn't work at present as any incumbent government seems prepared to accept that they will face a period out of government but once they are back in power they will have disproportionate representation as now.
So what we have is a clear direction that represent the largest single entity as opposed to the majority. If we had PR, the parties would realise they are never likely to see more than mid 40's % share and would learn to govern in a PR system. It would probably provide more incremental government.
How many businesses operate successfully by lurching from one direction to another?

What I mean by not working is not work as well as it should. Reforming the electoral system is just one aspect of reforms that are necessary. I can just see PR in a centralised system like ours resulting in gridlock. Devolve power and spending and gridlock at the top is not a major issue as the country still runs and regions can still make and change various policies through there own legitures. Hense gridlock in the usa at federal level does not stop the states doing stuff of there own backs. The federal government cant pass environmental initiatives but California has.

My preference is for PR.

morstar

So, is the renewed focus on the NI assembly part of a wider Brexit strategy?
It is a good thing that there will be a renewed focus on kickstarting Stormont but is it partly due to the fact that a more broadly representative stormont assembly will be easier to get on side than just the unionists with the sea border solution?
If so, it could neuter the unionist objections. i.e. Stormont has agreed...

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you want to claim some credit for this when it's clear that the result is entirely the party's own doing.

That was the aim.

I know the concept of competion may be something that youre not familiar with.

You still actually think your £3 did something?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

It categorically didn't tip the balance. He secured 59% and 61% of the vote in both leadership elections. It was the least close-run leadership contest ever seen. It has been calculated that Corbyn would have won in the first round with 51% of votes, even without "£3 registered supporters", having gained the support of 49.6% of full members and 57.6% of affiliated supporters.

Left-wingers alone did this to Labour.

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok mate keep telling yourself that. I’ve mentioned it *so many times* so if you didn’t listen then you won’t now.

OK - so when challenged to produce examples, you have no reply.

An example might be joining a political party you detest, so you can vote for leader who will be unelectable.
This would indicate you were scared of the competition.
Because they might elect a leader who might win.

Wrong. Just getting a competitive advantage as I said above.

Ah I didn’t realise that getting a competitive advantage meant having no moral scruples.

In your humble opinion.

You sound more like a morally superior Southerner than a Yorkshire bloke. Or just another bad loser venting about the GE result?

There's plenty of true believers unfortunately. I don't honestly think that those few having jolly japes had much impact except for helping make politics feel a bit more rotten.

Quite. With half a million members, the idea that it was a handful of Tory infiltrators, that made the difference, is just a little delusional.

Labour did this to themselves just as the Tories have let themselves be taken over by Vote Leave.

Who knows how many Conservatives joined up back in 2015? Looking at my first post on the Labour party thread, it got a fair bit of visibility judging by the variety of people who got wind of it. Although admitedly there would have been a lot of far left and hardcore union types piling in when they spotted their chance.

But whether or not it tipped the balance, it was cracking fun trying and created a few interesting 'debates' on here

Well yes, regardless of the fact it didn't tip the balance, it's a shitty thing to have done. And I'm no Labour supporter.

I got a few narky responses when I started the thread, so you're only 4 years or so too late. Anyhow, if you dont like it that's just tough - it's a free country and you can join whichever party you want.

Maybe I'll sign up for the Lib Dems next?

Noone said you weren't allowed to. Just betrays a lack of confidence in your arguments.

No, I've already explained the competitive advantage point more than once above...

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you want to claim some credit for this when it's clear that the result is entirely the party's own doing.

That was the aim.

I know the concept of competion may be something that youre not familiar with.

You still actually think your £3 did something?

Already answered above so pay attention - it's given me an enormous amount of entertainment over the last 4 years or so. Just look at the thread I set up to discuss it. As I also said, best £3 I ever spent.

The main thing is that Labour are out of power.