Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 15:01:45 GMT
srb7677 >> "You might be onto something. Starmer is someone for whom promises are purely tactical to get elected, then he'll do whatever he really wants once in. And he has always been a Remainer. And I know many who were in my former local party who supported him purely because of that.
And the fact is that both demographics and the tide of opinion is working against the Brexit dream and Starmer probably knows it. The elderly mostly voted for Brexit. In the seven years since then quite a few of them will no longer be with us. The young mostly voted Remain. The vast majority of them are still here. And 7 years worth of young people too young to have voted in 2016 are voters now. And most of them are more pro-EU than anti. Added to this inexorable demographic shift - by which the Brexit vote is slowly dying whilst the Remainer/Rejoiner vote is slowly growing - is the fact that growing numbers of people are beginning to see that they were lied to, and that Brexit has been an economic disaster.
So the tide is probably turning in Starmer's favour on this one. But he'll make sure of it by telling whatever lies are necessary in an election campaign anyway"
--------------------------------------------------------
Well its certainly a good theory, but thats all it is, without any real factual evidence or foundation
PLUS the truth is that the last time that public opinion was with LEAVE was over two years ago, and since 2021 the polls have gradually widened in favour of REMAIN or should I say REJOIN.
The most recent poll ( Omnisis 26th 27th April ) has a 17 point lead for REJOIN, so in reality, Starmer would not need to "fix" the electorate or elections, we will leave that to the Tories.
Also, Starmer has stated that rejoining the EU is not on the agenda, and will not be revisited, and I personaly believe that if he broke his word, he would be committing political suicide.
As for "lying" .. well a political leader could be termed a liar if something was included within a manifesto going into an election, and then that commitment was abandoned after winning power. On that basis, Starmer has not lied to the electorate or broken any promises.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 14, 2023 15:24:35 GMT
I'm sure that you do, young children that have been subject to a relentless diet of left wing wokery throughout their supposed education by leftie teachers are much more likely to vote labour that people who have worked for 50 years and actually have experience of working life. Your comment adds no value to Sir Kiers proposal other than confirm how dangerous it is to be so blinkered to obvious common sense. Also being agest lets down your leftie credentials. And yet with all this great experience that you have over the younguns, your only argument consists of "leftie" and "woke". 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 15:28:52 GMT
Also, Starmer has stated that rejoining the EU is not on the agenda, and will not be revisited, and I personaly believe that if he broke his word, he would be committing political suicide. i agree sid. Rejoin is not on the agenda. That means starmer is going to do the uks thinking for us , and take the uk back in bit by bit without a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on May 14, 2023 17:29:38 GMT
Hardly, I posted,
Foreigners, children and mental defectives would find those proposals attractive, people who have lived a productive and well balanced life immediately realise how absurd this is.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 14, 2023 17:32:59 GMT
My brother in law is from Germany but has been living in Blackburn (that takes some acclimatisation!) for 14 years. He's worked since he has been here, paying taxes and being a member of the community. He gets a vote in the local elections, but not the general election. I can think of absolutely no reason at all why he shouldn't have one. I can sunshine. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 14, 2023 17:35:47 GMT
I'm sure that you do, young children that have been subject to a relentless diet of left wing wokery throughout their supposed education by leftie teachers are much more likely to vote labour that people who have worked for 50 years and actually have experience of working life. Your comment adds no value to Sir Kiers proposal other than confirm how dangerous it is to be so blinkered to obvious common sense. Also being agest lets down your leftie credentials. And yet with all this great experience that you have over the younguns, your only argument consists of "leftie" and "woke". 🙄 And what values are yours to add to the matter apart from being a rabid remnante sun shine? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 17:38:36 GMT
srb7677 >> "You might be onto something. Starmer is someone for whom promises are purely tactical to get elected, then he'll do whatever he really wants once in. And he has always been a Remainer. And I know many who were in my former local party who supported him purely because of that.
And the fact is that both demographics and the tide of opinion is working against the Brexit dream and Starmer probably knows it. The elderly mostly voted for Brexit. In the seven years since then quite a few of them will no longer be with us. The young mostly voted Remain. The vast majority of them are still here. And 7 years worth of young people too young to have voted in 2016 are voters now. And most of them are more pro-EU than anti. Added to this inexorable demographic shift - by which the Brexit vote is slowly dying whilst the Remainer/Rejoiner vote is slowly growing - is the fact that growing numbers of people are beginning to see that they were lied to, and that Brexit has been an economic disaster.
So the tide is probably turning in Starmer's favour on this one. But he'll make sure of it by telling whatever lies are necessary in an election campaign anyway"
-------------------------------------------------------- Well its certainly a good theory, but thats all it is, without any real factual evidence or foundation PLUS the truth is that the last time that public opinion was with LEAVE was over two years ago, and since 2021 the polls have gradually widened in favour of REMAIN or should I say REJOIN. The most recent poll ( Omnisis 26th 27th April ) has a 17 point lead for REJOIN, so in reality, Starmer would not need to "fix" the electorate or elections, we will leave that to the Tories. Also, Starmer has stated that rejoining the EU is not on the agenda, and will not be revisited, and I personaly believe that if he broke his word, he would be committing political suicide. As for "lying" .. well a political leader could be termed a liar if something was included within a manifesto going into an election, and then that commitment was abandoned after winning power. On that basis, Starmer has not lied to the electorate or broken any promises. We are already well down the road to EU light and all the Brexit vote was was a hiccup for the great plan of a federal Europe of Nation states |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 14, 2023 17:41:31 GMT
srb7677 >> "You might be onto something. Starmer is someone for whom promises are purely tactical to get elected, then he'll do whatever he really wants once in. And he has always been a Remainer. And I know many who were in my former local party who supported him purely because of that.
And the fact is that both demographics and the tide of opinion is working against the Brexit dream and Starmer probably knows it. The elderly mostly voted for Brexit. In the seven years since then quite a few of them will no longer be with us. The young mostly voted Remain. The vast majority of them are still here. And 7 years worth of young people too young to have voted in 2016 are voters now. And most of them are more pro-EU than anti. Added to this inexorable demographic shift - by which the Brexit vote is slowly dying whilst the Remainer/Rejoiner vote is slowly growing - is the fact that growing numbers of people are beginning to see that they were lied to, and that Brexit has been an economic disaster.
So the tide is probably turning in Starmer's favour on this one. But he'll make sure of it by telling whatever lies are necessary in an election campaign anyway"
-------------------------------------------------------- Well its certainly a good theory, but thats all it is, without any real factual evidence or foundation PLUS the truth is that the last time that public opinion was with LEAVE was over two years ago, and since 2021 the polls have gradually widened in favour of REMAIN or should I say REJOIN. The most recent poll ( Omnisis 26th 27th April ) has a 17 point lead for REJOIN, so in reality, Starmer would not need to "fix" the electorate or elections, we will leave that to the Tories. Also, Starmer has stated that rejoining the EU is not on the agenda, and will not be revisited, and I personaly believe that if he broke his word, he would be committing political suicide. As for "lying" .. well a political leader could be termed a liar if something was included within a manifesto going into an election, and then that commitment was abandoned after winning power. On that basis, Starmer has not lied to the electorate or broken any promises. We are already well down the road to EU light and all the Brexit vote was was a hiccup for the great plan of a federal Europe of Nation states It was a modern day victory over the establishment rather than a civil war, the establishment still think they have avoided one and can crush any sign of a fightback. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 14, 2023 17:44:44 GMT
My brother in law is from Germany but has been living in Blackburn (that takes some acclimatisation!) for 14 years. He's worked since he has been here, paying taxes and being a member of the community. He gets a vote in the local elections, but not the general election. I can think of absolutely no reason at all why he shouldn't have one. I can sunshine. Such as? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 14, 2023 17:48:38 GMT
Such as, you weak minded fools will never learn, but on the Brightside maybe one day when you are finally replaced by AI as it has already shown you are just a pointless entity it might sing of the great and once almost democratic chance we were given, but hey ho, I am sure Covid was just the start. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 14, 2023 17:49:56 GMT
Not really, shrieks. You see the law defines anyone under 18 as a child and very much assumes a need for parental (or at least loco parentis) care. The term usually used is minor. Because the word child is understood by most to refer to someone who is still very young and clearly just a kid. Which is why the old fart merchants of condescension use the word whilst hiding behind a cloak of legitimacy. But it is their condescension that they are trying to express and it is contemptable. And a 16 year old is no longer entitled to legally binding parental care, and if he can afford to and wants to can happily live away from home. When I was 17 I went to Germany for three weeks on my own. I did not feel the need to have mummy and daddy's hand to hold on to. I worked from the age of 16 and paid for the trip to Germany myself. I was already far more man than boy. To call my then self a child would have been ridiculous, and no one ever did unless they wanted to be condescending. And that only ever happened if you disagreed with them on something. Nothing changes there it seems. Sorry to burst your bubble Shrieks, but I use recognised legal and social definitions rather than ones that you just pulled out of your arse. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 17:56:22 GMT
I quite like the idea of going in the opposite direction. Anyone who is not willing to commit fully and unconditionally to the UK shouldn't have a say in its governance
Only British Citizens with indefinite right to remain in the UK should be allowed to Vote in UK elections.
Furthermore, one should have to be all in - no half in half out, so anyone who takes up dual nationality loses the vote / Anyone who gives up dual nationality status gets it.
This same logic should apply to anyone who wants to stand for election. If you are hedging your bets with dual nationality you cant stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 17:56:56 GMT
As for "lying" .. well a political leader could be termed a liar if something was included within a manifesto going into an election, and then that commitment was abandoned after winning power. On that basis, Starmer has not lied to the electorate or broken any promises. He most certainly lied to the electorate in the Labour Party leadership election - how many of his commitments made then has he kept?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 18:08:23 GMT
The term usually used is minor. Because the word child is understood by most to refer to someone who is still very young and clearly just a kid. Which is why the old fart merchants of condescension use the word whilst hiding behind a cloak of legitimacy. But it is their condescension that they are trying to express and it is contemptable. And a 16 year old is no longer entitled to legally binding parental care, and if he can afford to and wants to can happily live away from home. When I was 17 I went to Germany for three weeks on my own. I did not feel the need to have mummy and daddy's hand to hold on to. I worked from the age of 16 and paid for the trip to Germany myself. I was already far more man than boy. To call my then self a child would have been ridiculous, and no one ever did unless they wanted to be condescending. And that only ever happened if you disagreed with them on something. Nothing changes there it seems. Sorry to burst your bubble Shrieks, but I use recognised legal and social definitions rather than ones that you just pulled out of your arse. Legal definitions are usually formed decades before and do not recognise changes in word usage, like the frequent use of the word "child" by condescending old twats to belittle young people who are nearly adults. Which is why no one outside a law court would ever call a 17 year old a child unless they were a condescending old twat deliberately doing so to be condescending. As you full well know because you probably do it yourself |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 18:11:18 GMT
I quite like the idea of going in the opposite direction. Anyone who is not willing to commit fully and unconditionally to the UK shouldn't have a say in its governance Only British Citizens with indefinite right to remain in the UK should be allowed to Vote in UK elections. Furthermore, one should have to be all in - no half in half out, so anyone who takes up dual nationality loses the vote / Anyone who gives up dual nationality status gets it. This same logic should apply to anyone who wants to stand for election. If you are hedging your bets with dual nationality you cant stand. Thats too restrictive. For me permanent residency here should entitle you to the vote here, after a settling in period. But it should also come with the requirement that you pay your taxes here on all income earned here or else no vote. |
|
