|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 11, 2024 8:34:00 GMT
why laugh , when you think 33.7% is a majority mandate. ? Errm, in your previous post, didn't you conclude that 49% was a majority?  sorry Andrew not with you mate. its a Sunday morning , and there are 34 pages of this thread . can you be a bit more specific and quote me the post you are talking about , so I can see what was said in context? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 8:51:01 GMT
Errm, in your previous post, didn't you conclude that 49% was a majority? sorry Andrew not with you mate. its a Sunday morning , and there are 34 pages of this thread . can you be a bit more specific and quote me the post you are talking about , so I can see what was said in context? It was the post prior to that on page 31, where you claimed that the majority thought Starmer was handling the riots "very badly", but produced a table which showed 49% for "badly". |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 11, 2024 9:46:19 GMT
sorry Andrew not with you mate. its a Sunday morning , and there are 34 pages of this thread . can you be a bit more specific and quote me the post you are talking about , so I can see what was said in context? It was the post prior to that on page 31, where you claimed that the majority thought Starmer was handling the riots "very badly", but produced a table which showed 49% for "badly". Eh? so you are reduced to misquoting a you gov poll to make some puerile point regarding what constitutes a majority? the poll includes the dont knows/unsure , so if you remove them you get a clear majority that think starmer has handled the riots badly. meanwhile , the general election result already removed those who weren't sure on who to vote for , so didnt vote , ie the 40.1% , and starmer could only manage 33.7% of the lowest turnout in history . I cant help it if you find it difficult to accept only 1 in 5 electors in this multi national state were motivated to vote for labour . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 11, 2024 9:48:34 GMT
Well OK - you do not want a 'Neo-Liberal Late Stage Capitalist economy' so what do you want?. It is the SNP and Nationalist aim to leave the UK and rejoin the EU - yet they are in faster decline than us. The only European countries showing any significant growth are those from Eastern Europe who reject many of the policies that the Scot Nats aspire to. Face it - Scotland is as signed up to decline under the late stage European social model as every other country in Western Europe. Not sure if you are responding to me or not? I am not Scottish and don't care what the SNP stand for. If ever another legal referendum is held on Scottish Independence then I hope Westminster has the courage to uphold the decision, as Westminster would have gone into meltdown had the EU rejected the UK Brexit Referendum and somehow prevented out exit. The EU Model at least makes an attempt to make Capitalism work for more people than Neo-Liberal Capitalism does. What do I want? A model of Capitalism that recognises, and seeks to mitigate, the abhorrent, and socio-politically dangerous, levels of Wealth Disparity that we now see. This has only really become totally unsustainable relatively recently, the last decade or two; but can directly be traced to the 1971 abandonment of the Gold Standard - when fiat currency was divorced from a tangible asset and house price inflation initially, and later inflation of other commodities, became totally divorced from wage inflation, especially for those in the bottom 3 quintiles. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 10:07:54 GMT
It was the post prior to that on page 31, where you claimed that the majority thought Starmer was handling the riots "very badly", but produced a table which showed 49% for "badly". Eh? so you are reduced to misquoting a you gov poll to make some puerile point regarding what constitutes a majority? the poll includes the dont knows/unsure , so if you remove them you get a clear majority that think starmer has handled the riots badly. meanwhile , the general election result already removed those who weren't sure on who to vote for , so didnt vote , ie the 40.1% , and starmer could only manage 33.7% of the lowest turnout in history . I cant help it if you find it difficult to accept only 1 in 5 electors in this multi national state were motivated to vote for labour . How to contradict yourself in one easy post... 🤣 The point I was making is that you were taking others to task (correctly) for misunderstanding what a majority was, but having done so yourself, so it was a little ironic. You also changed the definition of "badly" to "very badly", which was disingenuous. I'm sorry if you think that's puerile. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 11, 2024 10:33:01 GMT
Eh? so you are reduced to misquoting a you gov poll to make some puerile point regarding what constitutes a majority? the poll includes the dont knows/unsure , so if you remove them you get a clear majority that think starmer has handled the riots badly. meanwhile , the general election result already removed those who weren't sure on who to vote for , so didnt vote , ie the 40.1% , and starmer could only manage 33.7% of the lowest turnout in history . I cant help it if you find it difficult to accept only 1 in 5 electors in this multi national state were motivated to vote for labour . How to contradict yourself in one easy post... 🤣 The point I was making is that you were taking others to task (correctly) for misunderstanding what a majority was, but having done so yourself, so it was a little ironic. You also changed the definition of "badly" to "very badly", which was disingenuous. I'm sorry if you think that's puerile. eh? polls as you are well aware normally remove the dont knows , so applying that standard , we have 61.25% think starmer in handling the riots badly , 38.75% think he is handling them well. Ie....majority think starmer is handling the riots badly. you gov included the dont knows(unsure) in the poll I posted , which you then tried to seize upon to imply I think 49% is a majority , therefore 33.7% must be too. A majority is normally regarded as 50+1 or above. ....but you know this. so where have I misunderstood what a majority is Andrew? you seem to be trying and failing to make a mountain out of a molehill. Well aye I do Andrew. you seem to be labouring extremely hard to make a non point. do you think a party that gets 33.7% of the turnout , on the lowest turnout in history , a mere 20% of electors , but gets awarded two thirds of the seats is fair? I mean as a Scottish indy supporter , im happy for people like you to cheer on anti democratic systems for your parliament in London while I keep telling folk how much of a farce it is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 12:35:43 GMT
do you think a party that gets 33.7% of the turnout , on the lowest turnout in history , a mere 20% of electors , but gets awarded two thirds of the seats is fair? I mean as a Scottish indy supporter , im happy for people like you to cheer on anti democratic systems for your parliament in London while I keep telling folk how much of a farce it is. I've pointed out to you previously that not only am I in favour of PR, I'm a signed up member of the "Make Votes Matter" campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 11, 2024 12:41:31 GMT
do you think a party that gets 33.7% of the turnout , on the lowest turnout in history , a mere 20% of electors , but gets awarded two thirds of the seats is fair? I mean as a Scottish indy supporter , im happy for people like you to cheer on anti democratic systems for your parliament in London while I keep telling folk how much of a farce it is. I've pointed out to you previously that not only am I in favour of PR, I'm a signed up member of the "Make Votes Matter" campaign. yet you felt the need to go to all the lengths to misrepresent a poll to justify keir starmers lack of a mandate. why is it with the British left , its always the same - I support electoral reform......but.......? |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Aug 12, 2024 12:03:55 GMT
Starmer has a mandate because he won under the system we have.
The "popular vote" doesn't mean shit, because we vote to the system we have. ie a good chunk of people wouldn't bother voting Labour if they live in a Labour safe seat. Likewise, zero point voting Labour in a Tory safe seat.
We will get PR, because that is obviously Farage's next battle he wants to win. Maybe when we do we should make voting mandatory...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 12, 2024 12:19:43 GMT
Starmer has a mandate because he won under the system we have. The "popular vote" doesn't mean shit, because we vote to the system we have. ie a good chunk of people wouldn't bother voting Labour if they live in a Labour safe seat. Likewise, zero point voting Labour in a Tory safe seat. We will get PR, because that is obviously Farage's next battle he wants to win. Maybe when we do we should make voting mandatory... Ref your last point, I disagree, but we'll see. In the unlikely event that Reform UK won the next election Farage would almost certainly become uninterested in PR, the reason that wont happen is because the Tories recognise Reform UK is a threat and to counter that threat they will move to the centre right. If they don't, then Farage will capitalise on it and the Tories will remain in opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Aug 12, 2024 12:28:39 GMT
Starmer has a mandate because he won under the system we have. The "popular vote" doesn't mean shit, because we vote to the system we have. ie a good chunk of people wouldn't bother voting Labour if they live in a Labour safe seat. Likewise, zero point voting Labour in a Tory safe seat. We will get PR, because that is obviously Farage's next battle he wants to win. Maybe when we do we should make voting mandatory... Ref your last point, I disagree, but we'll see. In the unlikely event that Reform UK won the next election Farage would almost certainly become uninterested in PR, the reason that wont happen is because the Tories recognise Reform UK is a threat and to counter that threat they will move to the centre right. If they don't, then Farage will capitalise on it and the Tories will remain in opposition. Farage is going after Starmer. He has already set his stall out on the obvious problem of the extra 10 million people, and Starmer doesn't seem to want to address it for ideologic reasons. The working class see the effects of this 10 million, because it is in their towns and communities, places of work, and they they cannot get a house, gp / dental appointment. We are going to have 5 years of Farage banging on about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 12, 2024 12:41:35 GMT
Ref your last point, I disagree, but we'll see. In the unlikely event that Reform UK won the next election Farage would almost certainly become uninterested in PR, the reason that wont happen is because the Tories recognise Reform UK is a threat and to counter that threat they will move to the centre right. If they don't, then Farage will capitalise on it and the Tories will remain in opposition. Farage is going after Starmer. He has already set his stall out on the obvious problem of the extra 10 million people, and Starmer doesn't seem to want to address it for ideologic reasons. The working class see the effects of this 10 million, because it is in their towns and communities, places of work, and they they cannot get a house, gp / dental appointment. We are going to have 5 years of Farage banging on about it. I agree Starmer does indeed refuse to address any concerns ref immigration, no real surprise he's an autocrat. But behind the scenes he will not be relishing the thought of PMQ's or more to the point, for the next five years during PMQ's Farage will be televised giving Starmer a hard time over immigration, and that's great news. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 12, 2024 15:05:07 GMT
Starmer has a mandate because he won under the system we have. The "popular vote" doesn't mean shit, because we vote to the system we have. ie a good chunk of people wouldn't bother voting Labour if they live in a Labour safe seat. Likewise, zero point voting Labour in a Tory safe seat. We will get PR, because that is obviously Farage's next battle he wants to win. Maybe when we do we should make voting mandatory... I too believe voting should be mandatory. With each constituency ballot also having a NOTA (None Of The Above) as the last candidate, if NOTA wins all the parties have to stand new candidates. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 12, 2024 15:14:03 GMT
Starmer has a mandate because he won under the system we have. The "popular vote" doesn't mean shit, because we vote to the system we have. ie a good chunk of people wouldn't bother voting Labour if they live in a Labour safe seat. Likewise, zero point voting Labour in a Tory safe seat. We will get PR, because that is obviously Farage's next battle he wants to win. Maybe when we do we should make voting mandatory... Ref your last point, I disagree, but we'll see. In the unlikely event that Reform UK won the next election Farage would almost certainly become uninterested in PR, the reason that wont happen is because the Tories recognise Reform UK is a threat and to counter that threat they will move to the centre right. If they don't, then Farage will capitalise on it and the Tories will remain in opposition. Farage can't win under FPTP - he proved that 8 times in a row. The fact that this weekend Anti-Far-Right protestors outnumbered Far Right Protestors shows that leveraging the "angry mob" doesn't work long-term, because simply put Britain is better than that, and so trying to leverage that "angry mob" from a handful of seats to winning a majority in FPTP is a non-starter. In fact, it is such a non-starter that if the next GE is ran using FPTP I'd expect Reform to lose most, possibly all, of the seats they currently have. Farage needs to work with the current Parliament to force a vote on PR; problem is to leverage that "angry mob" he has made himself and his party so toxic I cant see the other parties that would benefit from PR actually agreeing to work with him. Farage has shown times and again he is a great antagonist to hold other parties' feet to the fire, but at wielding actual power he's next to useless; what did he achieve as an MEP - nothing? Oh, wait, he managed to sponge €Tens of Thousands off of the Taxpayer. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 12, 2024 16:02:09 GMT
Farage can't win under FPTP - he proved that 8 times in a row. The fact that this weekend Anti-Far-Right protestors outnumbered Far Right Protestors shows that leveraging the "angry mob" doesn't work long-term, because simply put Britain is better than that, and so trying to leverage that "angry mob" from a handful of seats to winning a majority in FPTP is a non-starter. In fact, it is such a non-starter that if the next GE is ran using FPTP I'd expect Reform to lose most, possibly all, of the seats they currently have. Farage needs to work with the current Parliament to force a vote on PR; problem is to leverage that "angry mob" he has made himself and his party so toxic I cant see the other parties that would benefit from PR actually agreeing to work with him. Farage has shown times and again he is a great antagonist to hold other parties' feet to the fire, but at wielding actual power he's next to useless; what did he achieve as an MEP - nothing? Oh, wait, he managed to sponge €Tens of Thousands off of the Taxpayer. All The Best Given the voting system Farage has done remarkably well, both with UKIP and Reform UK. You talk about anti far-right and far-right, but who are these protestors? In recent months we have all seen aggressive left wing protestors waving Hamas/Palestine flags, but in all honesty I havent seen much evidence of far-right protestors, far-right being fascists and Nazis. Or, in your opinion, is anyone who doesn't vote Labour far-right? I'm against mass immigration and I passionately want illegals who cross the channel sent back to France. In your opinion does that make me far-right? For all the reasons I've mentioned many times previously PR would be a disaster for this country, FPTP is far from perfect but it's preferable to endless weak coalitions, and the only people who regard Farage as 'toxic' are people who don't like him, lefties. Are you forgetting that Reform UK is just three years old yet 4¼ million people voted Reform. No new party in British political history has ever achieved five MP's in three years. Farage has shown time and again he is bloody good at what he does, had it not been for Farage and UKIP the referendum would not have happened and I'll let you into the worst kept secret in Westminster, Labour and centrist Tories for that matter, are not looking forward to Farage standing up in PMQ's for the next five years making statements and asking questions that Starmer would rather not listen to, or answer. You know perfectly well thanks to mass immigration and net zero that this one term government is likely to be the most unpopular government in living memory, as such the Tories will move back to the centre right because that's what people will want. But if in the unlikely event that people like Billy Hague and others get their way and the Tory party remain centrist, there will only be one winner, Farage and Reform UK. One day the political establishment might, just might, accept the fact that people are sick of mass immigration or the fact that Farage is the only politician who speaks against it. Go figure... |
|
