Join the Labour Party and save your country!

meursault

briantrumpet wrote:

meursault wrote:

You think ex tories are voting for Corbyn?

It's even possible that current Tories voted for Corbyn...

meursault

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

The MSM are on the attack and are petrified of us workers organising again.

Oh dear. You do know who votes for Labour these days, don't you? I'll give you a clue, it's not the working class - they're mostly voting for UKIP. The majority of Labour voters are the metropolitan elite and their trustafarian kids.

meursault wrote:

The so called un-electable Corbyn keeps winning by landslides, and would would probably do so in a general election.

Oh dear oh dear. Have you seen the poll where May's approval rating was higher than Corbyn among Labour voters? I fear that your delusion may be teaching sectionable levels.

UKIP give me strength! You sound like a brexit remainer apologist.

No I haven't seen that poll, bring on the white coats.

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

What's your definition of true membership? You think ex tories are voting for Corbyn?

Yes, it is OK people getting involved in politics, that's how we will represent ourselves. Winning in politics is being represented in parliament. MP's should be acting and fighting for the interests of their constituencies.

Err, that's kind of where this thread started. I don't think Stevo666 would claim to be the only such member.

Yes, being a good constituency representative is an important part of being an MP, but if you want to make big changes for your constituents, you need to win a general election.

meursault

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

What's your definition of true membership? You think ex tories are voting for Corbyn?

Yes, it is OK people getting involved in politics, that's how we will represent ourselves. Winning in politics is being represented in parliament. MP's should be acting and fighting for the interests of their constituencies.

Err, that's kind of where this thread started. I don't think Stevo666 would claim to be the only such member.

Yes, being a good constituency representative is an important part of being an MP, but if you want to make big changes for your constituents, you need to win a general election.

I dunno, it's hardly a scientific or conclusive study is it? One or a couple of ex tories allegedly voting Corbyn.

What we may be seeing is a radicalisation of and by working class people. It is an explanation for brexit, Trump, Corbyn to name a few examples. There may be a shift in consciousness away from professional politicians (like Clinton) and towards those who should represent them. The arrogance and audacity of the ruling class and the bosses over things like tax evasion and the decline of the NHS etc. is starting to annoy people enough, for them to start doing something about it. This is the type of discussion that goes on in my workplace anyway.

rick_chasey

Yeah 'cos Farage isn't the embodiment of privilege or city excess.

Nor does he have a reputation for exploiting those most in need of help for his own gain.

:roll:

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah 'cos Farage isn't the embodiment of privilege or city excess.

Nor does he have a reputation for exploiting those most in need of help for his own gain.

:roll:

yeah but Trump is the same and he got voted in by a large number of US working class.

Meursault is right, people are p1ssed off and at mo have no one to represent them, maybe Corbyn will be the one but more likely to be a smarter right wing politician, so rules out anyone from the Tory party.

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

Corbyn's rise is a result of the membership wanting to return to socialist representation rather than Blair's conservatism. The MSM are on the attack and are petrified of us workers organising again. The so called un-electable Corbyn keeps winning by landslides, and would would probably do so in a general election.

The only thing that Corbyn won by a landslide is the Labour leadership election - with a bit of help

Unfortunately the voting Labour membership are so far out of step with the PLP and the wider base of Labour voters that they are screwed. If there were a general election tomorrow thay would get taken to the cleaners:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

The only thing that Corbyn won by a landslide is the Labour leadership election - with a bit of help

This makes me reflect that 'landslide' is a curious metaphor for success in elections: physical landslides are nearly always some sort of disaster, the only possible upside is that occasionally they expose some old fossils...

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The only thing that Corbyn won by a landslide is the Labour leadership election - with a bit of help

This makes me reflect that 'landslide' is a curious metaphor for success in elections: physical landslides are nearly always some sort of disaster, the only possible upside is that occasionally they expose some old fossils...

Quite apt here then. There certainly seem to be a lot of dinosaurs around at the moment. Speaking of which, has anyone told them this?:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driver-only-trains-are-safe-watchdog-tells-rail-unions-vn6j0tf3k

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

I've been saying this for a long time - that Labour are still deluded that they lost the last two elections because they were not left wing enough, rather than the point that they p1ssed money up the wall when in power, are not be trusted with the economy and were seen as not really botheed about huge swathes of rhe voting population.

tangled_metal

Career politicians? Are people p1ssed off with them? So why vote for Corbyn as leader of the opposition? AFAIK he's not done anything outside of politics in his working life.

I stand corrected, he worked very briefly as a journalist, then for VSO in Jamaica for 2 years. Then he became a union rep and councillor at 24 years. After that MP. Mostly a career politician or unionist. In fact he's been active in Labour since school years. He started off at prep school then a grammar school like a good socialist middle class kid. Another hypocrite who got educated in the system that he and his generation of Labour politicians scrapped.

So the question i have is this. If Corbyn being voted into the Labour leadership is a reaction to career politicians then why choose a career politician? Makes no sense. He's a career politician who's part of the London, socialist set (or whatever they're called) how is he really going to change anything?

meursault

Tangled Metal wrote:

Career politicians? Are people p1ssed off with them? So why vote for Corbyn as leader of the opposition? AFAIK he's not done anything outside of politics in his working life.

I stand corrected, he worked very briefly as a journalist, then for VSO in Jamaica for 2 years. Then he became a union rep and councillor at 24 years. After that MP. Mostly a career politician or unionist. In fact he's been active in Labour since school years. He started off at prep school then a grammar school like a good socialist middle class kid. Another hypocrite who got educated in the system that he and his generation of Labour politicians scrapped.

So the question i have is this. If Corbyn being voted into the Labour leadership is a reaction to career politicians then why choose a career politician? Makes no sense. He's a career politician who's part of the London, socialist set (or whatever they're called) how is he really going to change anything?

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

meursault

Incidentally, MSM story about MSM being biased and anti-Corbyn. Saw it on Arsebook.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-political-editor-jeremy-corbyn-bbc-row-impartiality-a7514581.html

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

I've been saying this for a long time - that Labour are still deluded that they lost the last two elections because they were not left wing enough, rather than the point that they p1ssed money up the wall when in power, are not be trusted with the economy and were seen as not really botheed about huge swathes of rhe voting population.

though i agree that is the perception, the reality is different, NHS in crisis (a humanitarian crisis according to the red cross!) roads (no wonder spesh have introduced suspension into their road bikes!) education, public borrowing and of course the greatest threat to our economy.... Brexit.... bought about for no other reason than to save the Tory party from tearing itself apart, and before Bally pops up and says public pressure/ukip etc - rubbish! ukip had no MPs and leaving the EU didnt figure in voters top 10 concerns in 2010.

Austerity has been a disaster for this country in particular effecting the poorest most and further cuts in education will affect the least well off yet again - how is this going to up-skill our emerging work force? the tories dont care, just rhetoric.

ballysmate

An interesting concept Mamba. Although UKIP enjoyed more support than some other parties, their lack of seats means that the views and wishes of their supporters should be ignored does it?
On that basis, only the views of Tory voters are relevant as none of the other parties, esp Libdems won sufficient seats. Everyone else was a loser eh?
On the same basis, all remainers should stop whining as they lost and their opinions don't matter do they?
Logic according to Mamba.

You mentioned voter concerns in 2010. I have said previously that anti EU feeling had been growing and that a referendum was inevitable. The fact that a majority voted Brexit tends to back up my claim doesn't it?
If the Cnuts against a referendum had held a vote some years back rather than try to halt the tide, we would not currently be heading for Brexit would we?

rick_chasey

TBH when homosexuality was decriminalised most polls said it was hugely unpopular but the government still thought it was the right thing to do so did it anyway.

Quite right too! So it's not always so black & white bally.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

I've been saying this for a long time - that Labour are still deluded that they lost the last two elections because they were not left wing enough, rather than the point that they p1ssed money up the wall when in power, are not be trusted with the economy and were seen as not really botheed about huge swathes of rhe voting population.

though i agree that is the perception, the reality is different, NHS in crisis (a humanitarian crisis according to the red cross!) roads (no wonder spesh have introduced suspension into their road bikes!) education, public borrowing

If the reality is different then are you saying that Labour would have solved all the issues on your list? If only they had a few more years on top on the 13 years they were in power from 1997 to 2010...

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

roger_merriman

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

Indeed though to be fair to Corbyn/Momentum labour and left of centre parties in general are in trouble Europe wide.

And Labours woes though not helped by Corbyn mostly predate him, i.e. Collapsed vote in Scotland and so on.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

rjsterry

roger merriman wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

Indeed though to be fair to Corbyn/Momentum labour and left of centre parties in general are in trouble Europe wide.

And Labours woes though not helped by Corbyn mostly predate him, i.e. Collapsed vote in Scotland and so on.

Which was the general thrust of the article I posted a page or two back. On that evidence, they'll need one more change at the top before things swing back their way.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

I've been saying this for a long time - that Labour are still deluded that they lost the last two elections because they were not left wing enough, rather than the point that they p1ssed money up the wall when in power, are not be trusted with the economy and were seen as not really botheed about huge swathes of rhe voting population.

though i agree that is the perception, the reality is different, NHS in crisis (a humanitarian crisis according to the red cross!) roads (no wonder spesh have introduced suspension into their road bikes!) education, public borrowing

If the reality is different then are you saying that Labour would have solved all the issues on your list? If only they had a few more years on top on the 13 years they were in power from 1997 to 2010...

what i am saying steve is that the Tories and their fixation with austerity have cost this country money NOT saved any, thats bad management - eg social care, education and roads mtce and of course the one thing you dont allude too Brexit !!!!!!

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting concept Mamba. Although UKIP enjoyed more support than some other parties, their lack of seats means that the views and wishes of their supporters should be ignored does it?
On that basis, only the views of Tory voters are relevant as none of the other parties, esp Libdems won sufficient seats. Everyone else was a loser eh?
On the same basis, all remainers should stop whining as they lost and their opinions don't matter do they?
Logic according to Mamba.

You mentioned voter concerns in 2010. I have said previously that anti EU feeling had been growing and that a referendum was inevitable. The fact that a majority voted Brexit tends to back up my claim doesn't it?
If the Cnuts against a referendum had held a vote some years back rather than try to halt the tide, we would not currently be heading for Brexit would we?

At the risk of crossing threads I agree that anti-EU feeling had been growing (having been vigorously stoked by the usual suspects) but if that had been properly tackled much earlier (late '90s) then I think a referendum may have been avoided.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting concept Mamba. Although UKIP enjoyed more support than some other parties, their lack of seats means that the views and wishes of their supporters should be ignored does it?
On that basis, only the views of Tory voters are relevant as none of the other parties, esp Libdems won sufficient seats. Everyone else was a loser eh?
On the same basis, all remainers should stop whining as they lost and their opinions don't matter do they?
Logic according to Mamba.

You mentioned voter concerns in 2010. I have said previously that anti EU feeling had been growing and that a referendum was inevitable. The fact that a majority voted Brexit tends to back up my claim doesn't it?
If the Cnuts against a referendum had held a vote some years back rather than try to halt the tide, we would not currently be heading for Brexit would we?

unfortunately if you want the concerns of minority parties taken into account than campaign for PR, because with our fptp system, concerns of minorities are not taken into account, that is just the way it is, unless you can point to a statement AND policy from TM that supports anything Labour want but the Tories dont? no, i didnt think you could, unless Mays majority collapses, it will never happen.

The referendum wasn't inevitable at all, no gov called a ref on capitol punishment in the last 50 years, because they knew they d lose and it wasnt in the UKs best interests, even though it would be good for electoral gain, Gov's resisted voter wishes, back then, poll after poll said we d bring back hanging.

Strong leaders do what is best for the country (or at least what they believe in) not what is best for their short term gain and as i said earlier, DC's subsequent behaviour shows him to be the weakest leader we ve had since Chamberlain.

As i also said before, by the time we leave the EU, a majority may well want to stay as older folk die off and youngsters come of age.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Fabian society seems to have lost hope for Labour. But the real bad news for JC is when Big Len weighs in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343

See my post above - ditto. I think you should join Unite.

An interesting opinion piece here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

There are some strong parallels between the current Labour party and the Conservatives in 1997. In summary, Corbyn's rise is a symptom (rather than a cause) of Labour not being able to work out why they lost in 2010. Remember Hague and IDS as Tory leaders?

I've been saying this for a long time - that Labour are still deluded that they lost the last two elections because they were not left wing enough, rather than the point that they p1ssed money up the wall when in power, are not be trusted with the economy and were seen as not really botheed about huge swathes of rhe voting population.

though i agree that is the perception, the reality is different, NHS in crisis (a humanitarian crisis according to the red cross!) roads (no wonder spesh have introduced suspension into their road bikes!) education, public borrowing

If the reality is different then are you saying that Labour would have solved all the issues on your list? If only they had a few more years on top on the 13 years they were in power from 1997 to 2010...

what i am saying steve is that the Tories and their fixation with austerity have cost this country money NOT saved any, thats bad management - eg social care, education and roads mtce and of course the one thing you dont allude too Brexit !!!!!!

That's missing the point - I am talking about why Labour are doomed to failure.

Regardless of what you regard as Tory failures (despite Labour being in power for 13 of the last 20 years), the Tories are massively ahead in the polls currently - see my link above.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting concept Mamba. Although UKIP enjoyed more support than some other parties, their lack of seats means that the views and wishes of their supporters should be ignored does it?
On that basis, only the views of Tory voters are relevant as none of the other parties, esp Libdems won sufficient seats. Everyone else was a loser eh?
On the same basis, all remainers should stop whining as they lost and their opinions don't matter do they?
Logic according to Mamba.

You mentioned voter concerns in 2010. I have said previously that anti EU feeling had been growing and that a referendum was inevitable. The fact that a majority voted Brexit tends to back up my claim doesn't it?
If the Cnuts against a referendum had held a vote some years back rather than try to halt the tide, we would not currently be heading for Brexit would we?

unfortunately if you want the concerns of minority parties taken into account than campaign for PR, because with our fptp system, concerns of minorities are not taken into account, that is just the way it is, unless you can point to a statement AND policy from TM that supports anything Labour want but the Tories dont? no, i didnt think you could, unless Mays majority collapses, it will never happen.

The referendum wasn't inevitable at all, no gov called a ref on capitol punishment in the last 50 years, because they knew they d lose and it wasnt in the UKs best interests, even though it would be good for electoral gain, Gov's resisted voter wishes, back then, poll after poll said we d bring back hanging.

Strong leaders do what is best for the country (or at least what they believe in) not what is best for their short term gain and as i said earlier, DC's subsequent behaviour shows him to be the weakest leader we ve had since Chamberlain.

As i also said before, by the time we leave the EU, a majority may well want to stay as older folk die off and youngsters come of age.

So given our FPTP system, you believe that every 'losing' party' supporters should be ignored and that the Tories would never do something unpopular with their own supporters do you?
Then you may have forgotten posting this.


Given that Osborne has taken most of the Labours policies (now inc rent control no less), i expect right now, Ossie is reading through Corbyns manifesto for next aprils budget too
vote cameron, get corbyn

Your comparison with a vote on capital punishment is flawed. Support for that was falling, anti EU support was on the rise.
Yes the younger folk may be more predisposed to wanting to be in the EU, but at the moment, many of them couldn't even be arsed to vote could they.
When A50 is triggered, we are on a one way street. The only way to get back in is as a new member and all that that entails and the EU would have to want us back. Besides, that would probably involve another referendum at some distant time, a referendum I assume you would oppose.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The only thing that Corbyn won by a landslide is the Labour leadership election - with a bit of help

This makes me reflect that 'landslide' is a curious metaphor for success in elections: physical landslides are nearly always some sort of disaster, the only possible upside is that occasionally they expose some old fossils...

Quite apt here then. There certainly seem to be a lot of dinosaurs around at the moment. Speaking of which, has anyone told them this?:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driver-only-trains-are-safe-watchdog-tells-rail-unions-vn6j0tf3k

And here we have the ASLEF general Secretary being wilfully disingenuous about the watchdogs report in order to prolong the strike:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/rail-misery-continues-union-bosses-refuse-accept-findings-watchdog/

How much longer are people going to put up with this?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting concept Mamba. Although UKIP enjoyed more support than some other parties, their lack of seats means that the views and wishes of their supporters should be ignored does it?
On that basis, only the views of Tory voters are relevant as none of the other parties, esp Libdems won sufficient seats. Everyone else was a loser eh?
On the same basis, all remainers should stop whining as they lost and their opinions don't matter do they?
Logic according to Mamba.

You mentioned voter concerns in 2010. I have said previously that anti EU feeling had been growing and that a referendum was inevitable. The fact that a majority voted Brexit tends to back up my claim doesn't it?
If the Cnuts against a referendum had held a vote some years back rather than try to halt the tide, we would not currently be heading for Brexit would we?

unfortunately if you want the concerns of minority parties taken into account than campaign for PR, because with our fptp system, concerns of minorities are not taken into account, that is just the way it is, unless you can point to a statement AND policy from TM that supports anything Labour want but the Tories dont? no, i didnt think you could, unless Mays majority collapses, it will never happen.

The referendum wasn't inevitable at all, no gov called a ref on capitol punishment in the last 50 years, because they knew they d lose and it wasnt in the UKs best interests, even though it would be good for electoral gain, Gov's resisted voter wishes, back then, poll after poll said we d bring back hanging.

Strong leaders do what is best for the country (or at least what they believe in) not what is best for their short term gain and as i said earlier, DC's subsequent behaviour shows him to be the weakest leader we ve had since Chamberlain.

As i also said before, by the time we leave the EU, a majority may well want to stay as older folk die off and youngsters come of age.

So given our FPTP system, you believe that every 'losing' party' supporters should be ignored and that the Tories would never do something unpopular with their own supporters do you?
Then you may have forgotten posting this.


Given that Osborne has taken most of the Labours policies (now inc rent control no less), i expect right now, Ossie is reading through Corbyns manifesto for next aprils budget too
vote cameron, get corbyn

Your comparison with a vote on capital punishment is flawed. Support for that was falling, anti EU support was on the rise.
Yes the younger folk may be more predisposed to wanting to be in the EU, but at the moment, many of them couldn't even be arsed to vote could they.
When A50 is triggered, we are on a one way street. The only way to get back in is as a new member and all that that entails and the EU would have to want us back. Besides, that would probably involve another referendum at some distant time, a referendum I assume you would oppose.

Your not stupid Bally, so i ve highlighted the sentence where i say it is an unfortunate consequence of FPTP.....

anti eu sentiment on the rise? got any evidence for this?
http://theconversation.com/polling-hist ... rope-61250

clear cut that until 2012 it is constantly varying over time, sometimes leave, sometimes stay.

as for the death penalty, i was wrong, it appears its still in favour, several polls showed this but this one showed the support it has amongst ukip and tory voters... telling really.

https://www.rt.com/uk/321342-death-pena ... niversary/

as there is such support, you ll agree we need a referendum on this subject, yes?

pinching policies from opposition parties is common place, labour have done in the past and so do the Tories, what we are talking about is committing to a policy against the wishes of the governing parties MP's/supporters.

why would i oppose a referendum that might undo this disaster? it wont be me and you paying for it, it ll be our kids.

ballysmate

No need for a referendum on the death penalty as I can't see it becoming a problem in the future. EU membership was going to become a bigger and bigger problem.
Remember, the EU referendum was designed to head off the Brexiters as a Remain vote was expected. As I said earlier, Remainers would have been better pushing for an earlier vote instead of sticking their heads in the sand.
Why should you oppose another referendum? You have been whining for 2 years what a bad idea they are.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

anti eu sentiment on the rise? got any evidence for this?

Erm, how about the BREXIT referendum result?