|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 12, 2024 17:39:13 GMT
The public didn't put him there, though did they?
About a sixth of the electorate voted for him through an outmoded and corrupted system.
And he lied even to those hoodwinked enough to vote for him.
Truth is, he lied his way into power and has no mandate whatsoever.
He got in because of the power vaccuum left after the majority who did vote, voted the Tories out. 19.2 million of us did not vote. There's the highest apathy I can remember.
It's very clear that Labour have not learned from past mistakes and they should not take their majority for granted.
The turnout was abysmal.
There's no evidence that the majority of people like them.
3 successful landslide victories in GE between 1997-2010 Says plentiful people likes them. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 12, 2024 17:53:47 GMT
The public didn't put him there, though did they?
About a sixth of the electorate voted for him through an outmoded and corrupted system.
And he lied even to those hoodwinked enough to vote for him.
Truth is, he lied his way into power and has no mandate whatsoever.
He got in because of the power vaccuum left after the majority who did vote, voted the Tories out. 19.2 million of us did not vote. There's the highest apathy I can remember.
It's very clear that Labour have not learned from past mistakes and they should not take their majority for granted.
The turnout was abysmal.
There's no evidence that the majority of people like them.
Yep according to Fact Check. What percentage of people in Britain voted “against Labour”? Labour won 34% of all votes cast in the UK (and under the UK’s ‘First Past the Post’ electoral system, 63% of all seats in the House of Commons). By the same token, 66% of voters voted for parties other than Labour and therefore “against Labour”. But the size of the electoral roll is not the same as the whole population, because not all eligible people have registered and many people are not eligible because they’re too young, for example. What’s more, not everyone on the electoral roll actually voted. Voter turnout across the UK was around 60%, which is the proportion of those on the electoral roll who actually cast a vote on 4 July, and the total registered electorate was 48.2 million. This means around 29 million people across the UK voted in total, with approximately 19 million people voting for parties other than Labour, and around 9.7 million people voting for Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 12, 2024 18:03:11 GMT
He got in because of the power vaccuum left after the majority who did vote, voted the Tories out. 19.2 million of us did not vote. There's the highest apathy I can remember.
It's very clear that Labour have not learned from past mistakes and they should not take their majority for granted.
The turnout was abysmal.
There's no evidence that the majority of people like them.
Yep according to Fact Check. What percentage of people in Britain voted “against Labour”? Labour won 34% of all votes cast in the UK (and under the UK’s ‘First Past the Post’ electoral system, 63% of all seats in the House of Commons). By the same token, 66% of voters voted for parties other than Labour and therefore “against Labour”. But the size of the electoral roll is not the same as the whole population, because not all eligible people have registered and many people are not eligible because they’re too young, for example. What’s more, not everyone on the electoral roll actually voted. Voter turnout across the UK was around 60%, which is the proportion of those on the electoral roll who actually cast a vote on 4 July, and the total registered electorate was 48.2 million. This means around 29 million people across the UK voted in total, with approximately 19 million people voting for parties other than Labour, and around 9.7 million people voting for Labour. Thats Nothing new you always get more votes cast for other party's then the winner |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 12, 2024 18:09:08 GMT
3 successful landslide victories in GE between 1997-2010 Says plentiful people likes them. 1992 registered voters (I was too young) not listed. Turnout however was 77.7% Conservative victory, but Labour got 11.5 million votes. 1997 registered voters (including me for the first time) 43,846,152 Labour got 13,518,167 votes. Undeniable Labour landslide victory despite Labour's lies that he would match James Goldsmith's Referendum Party's promise of a referendum. 2001 registered voters 44,403,238 but Labour only got 10,724,953 votes, that's worse than 1992 and 1979 never mind 2017.
2005 registered voters 44,245,939 Labour only got 9.5 million votes.
Only one Labour leader has ever done worse for the party (Michael Foot in 1983).
Your love of Blair is misplaced. He ruined Labour and gave them 14 years in opposition.
Starmer has not fixed Labour he only got 9.7 million votes.
Even Corbyn did better than that in 2019.
If you want Labour to do well, then there are things they need to sort out.
They need to look at why out of an electorate of 48 million, they're only getting 9.7 million votes.
Address that and Labour might survive the next election.
Unfortunately for Labour they've embraced clap happy political correctness and diversity wonk wank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 12, 2024 18:17:36 GMT
3 successful landslide victories in GE between 1997-2010 Says plentiful people likes them. 1992 registered voters (I was too young) not listed. Turnout however was 77.7% Conservative victory, but Labour got 11.5 million votes. 1997 registered voters (including me for the first time) 43,846,152 Labour got 13,518,167 votes. Undeniable Labour landslide victory despite Labour's lies that he would match James Goldsmith's Referendum Party's promise of a referendum. 2001 registered voters 44,403,238 but Labour only got 10,724,953 votes, that's worse than 1992 and 1979 never mind 2017.
2005 registered voters 44,245,939 Labour only got 9.5 million votes.
Only one Labour leader has ever done worse for the party (Michael Foot in 1983).
Your love of Blair is misplaced. He ruined Labour and gave them 14 years in opposition.
Starmer has not fixed Labour he only got 9.7 million votes.
Even Corbyn did better than that in 2019.
If you want Labour to do well, then there are things they need to sort out.
They need to look at why out of an electorate of 48 million, they're only getting 9.7 million votes.
Address that and Labour might survive the next election.
Unfortunately for Labour they've embraced clap happy political correctness and diversity wonk wank.
Read my new thread |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 12, 2024 18:35:27 GMT
No mandate i take it you don't know what a mandate is ... Of course I do, doofus. Mandate: Regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election. Which can hardly be said when 80% of said electorate didn't vote for the winner. As for the rest of your post, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just like you in fact, doofus. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 12, 2024 18:40:50 GMT
Yep according to Fact Check. What percentage of people in Britain voted “against Labour”? Labour won 34% of all votes cast in the UK (and under the UK’s ‘First Past the Post’ electoral system, 63% of all seats in the House of Commons). By the same token, 66% of voters voted for parties other than Labour and therefore “against Labour”. But the size of the electoral roll is not the same as the whole population, because not all eligible people have registered and many people are not eligible because they’re too young, for example. What’s more, not everyone on the electoral roll actually voted. Voter turnout across the UK was around 60%, which is the proportion of those on the electoral roll who actually cast a vote on 4 July, and the total registered electorate was 48.2 million. This means around 29 million people across the UK voted in total, with approximately 19 million people voting for parties other than Labour, and around 9.7 million people voting for Labour. Thats Nothing new you always get more votes cast for other party's then the winner I did not state otherwise, simply dealing in facts only 34% of those who did vote voted for Labour |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 12, 2024 18:58:23 GMT
How odd The Prime Minister DID take a question this morning from a journalist from GB News The sniveling little lying rat should take questions from anyone who asks them, because he can't answer or uncomfortable in answering is irrelevant, the public put him there and the sniveling little rat is answerable the public, even if he thinks he isn't. GB News is an independent news outlet. It doesn't have to abide by the levels of honesty required by ITV and BBC. Why anyone would listen to it or defend it is questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 12, 2024 19:02:59 GMT
The sniveling little lying rat should take questions from anyone who asks them, because he can't answer or uncomfortable in answering is irrelevant, the public put him there and the sniveling little rat is answerable the public, even if he thinks he isn't. The public didn't put him there, though did they?
About a sixth of the electorate voted for him through an outmoded and corrupted system.
And he lied even to those hoodwinked enough to vote for him.
Truth is, he lied his way into power and has no mandate whatsoever.
Muttered like a true 'less than a full shilling' Rightist. YES, the public did put him there. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 12, 2024 20:15:11 GMT
The sniveling little lying rat should take questions from anyone who asks them, because he can't answer or uncomfortable in answering is irrelevant, the public put him there and the sniveling little rat is answerable the public, even if he thinks he isn't. GB News is an independent news outlet. It doesn't have to abide by the levels of honesty required by ITV and BBC. Why anyone would listen to it or defend it is questionable. I think honesty in close association with the BBC is bit off. Going back a bit there are oodles of occasions when honesty was lacking. I stopped watching several years ago so recently I have no idea if they are honest or not, recent history says no. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 12, 2024 20:19:40 GMT
No mandate i take it you don't know what a mandate is ... Of course I do, doofus. Mandate: Regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election. Which can hardly be said when 80% of said electorate didn't vote for the winner. As for the rest of your post, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just like you in fact, doofus. A winner a winner Chicken dinner No matter how you cry over the fact |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 13, 2024 7:28:31 GMT
Farage was talking about this last night with Jacob Rees-Mogg. JRM said that being an MP is technically not a job. It's an "office" which you are given after winning an election. Starmer can't make up requirements on the office and the try to boot you out for not fulfilling them. What he would have to do is call a by-election to remove him - and there are rules about how this can be done.. If the people still voted him in there would be nothing he could do. And I imagine that the "people" would see any attempt to remove Farage and Anderson for exactly what it would be - an attempt boot out people who don't agree with him. Farage would get an even bigger majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Sept 13, 2024 7:39:42 GMT
Farage was talking about this last night with Jacob Rees-Mogg. JRM said that being an MP is technically not a job. It's an "office" which you are given after winning an election. Starmer can't make up requirements on the office and the try to boot you out for not fulfilling them. What he would have to do is call a by-election to remove him - and there are rules about how this can be done.. If the people still voted him in there would be nothing he could do. And I imagine that the "people" would see any attempt to remove Farage and Anderson for exactly what it would be - an attempt boot out people who don't agree with him. Farage would get an even bigger majority. I Believe farage HOC attendance is pretty Dire . And barely meets his Constitutes |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 13, 2024 7:41:39 GMT
Farage was talking about this last night with Jacob Rees-Mogg. JRM said that being an MP is technically not a job. It's an "office" which you are given after winning an election. Starmer can't make up requirements on the office and the try to boot you out for not fulfilling them. What he would have to do is call a by-election to remove him - and there are rules about how this can be done.. If the people still voted him in there would be nothing he could do. And I imagine that the "people" would see any attempt to remove Farage and Anderson for exactly what it would be - an attempt boot out people who don't agree with him. Farage would get an even bigger majority. I Believe farage HOC attendance is pretty Dire . And barely meets his Constitutes You 'believe' any information on that with actual stats. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 13, 2024 7:57:04 GMT
Farage was talking about this last night with Jacob Rees-Mogg. JRM said that being an MP is technically not a job. It's an "office" which you are given after winning an election. Starmer can't make up requirements on the office and the try to boot you out for not fulfilling them. What he would have to do is call a by-election to remove him - and there are rules about how this can be done.. If the people still voted him in there would be nothing he could do. And I imagine that the "people" would see any attempt to remove Farage and Anderson for exactly what it would be - an attempt boot out people who don't agree with him. Farage would get an even bigger majority. I Believe farage HOC attendance is pretty Dire . And barely meets his Constitutes And we should care because? |
|
