What a disaster the Tories are.
Discussion
Justayellowbadge said:
Although, the PLP would really rather rid itself of Corbyn so may see a drubbing in a snap GE as the only way given current rules.
It could make it worse though - a much smaller parliamentary party would only give more power to the national party. There are so few Corbynista MPs that anything short of Corbyn losing his seat would probably make him stronger. SKP555 said:
The disaster element of this fiasco is entirely a result of the fact that Cameron and his government and advisors clearly barely a thought to the possibility that they might not get the (Remain) result they wanted. There was no planning by the civil service. No discussion of or even thought given to what arrangements we would pursue outside the EU; and of course now we know not even legal clarity around how we actually trigger Article 50. They simply hadn't considered it.
When you think about this it displays a staggering arrogance. They offered a 50/50 choice and didn't even consider one of the potential outcomes as a possibility.
It’s like me asking my wife if she wants pork chops or jugged hare for dinner, knowing we have pork chops in the fridge and that I'll have to get on Google to find out what exactly jugged hare is and how you cook it then hope that I can buy some locally at 6:30pm.
The Tories are a disaster not because May is apparently committed to delivering the expressed wishes of the people, that is the minimum she needs to do. They are a disaster because the high handed arrogance of David Cameron has left them in a position they never wanted to be in.
I'm pretty sure that this debacle will go down in political folklore as a prime example of how a successful government can really stuff things up for themselves.
I voted to leave (and Tory at the last election) but I agree with this. It's not just that they bet the house on a result they couldn't guarantee and then lost, it's the total failure to work through the practical contingencies in the event of a leave vote. May's scrambling to catch up as a result.When you think about this it displays a staggering arrogance. They offered a 50/50 choice and didn't even consider one of the potential outcomes as a possibility.
It’s like me asking my wife if she wants pork chops or jugged hare for dinner, knowing we have pork chops in the fridge and that I'll have to get on Google to find out what exactly jugged hare is and how you cook it then hope that I can buy some locally at 6:30pm.
The Tories are a disaster not because May is apparently committed to delivering the expressed wishes of the people, that is the minimum she needs to do. They are a disaster because the high handed arrogance of David Cameron has left them in a position they never wanted to be in.
I'm pretty sure that this debacle will go down in political folklore as a prime example of how a successful government can really stuff things up for themselves.
Justayellowbadge said:
davepoth said:
The Tories are riding high in the polls at the moment so that doesn't seem unreasonable. It would rely on Labour voting in favour of it though, which seems unlikely.
Although, the PLP would really rather rid itself of Corbyn so may see a drubbing in a snap GE as the only way given current rules. Trabi601 said:
It's rather ironic, isn't it?
I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
That's basic statistics. With a small "population" (eg a union of, say, a few hundred) you need to sample at least 50% to get a reasonably representative result. In a referendum of millions you only need a few thousand votes to get a very accurate result. I've read posts here where unions have been slated for taking strike action based on a majority vote of those who turned out to vote - saying exactly as you've posted - the threshold should be over 50% of those eligible to vote.
But, because the referendum had their desired outcome, it's all perfectly fine that less than 50% of eligible voters is enough to push it through.
Try plugging some numbers in here.
don4l said:
Why is everyone talking about Brexit? There are other threads where we can discuss Brexit issues.
This thread is about what a disaster the Tories are.
So, can we all agree that if we hold a snap election, that Labour will have a landslide victory?
The only way that we can answer that question is to actually have a snap election.
Bring it on!
Telegraph has some interesting analysis on this. This thread is about what a disaster the Tories are.
So, can we all agree that if we hold a snap election, that Labour will have a landslide victory?
The only way that we can answer that question is to actually have a snap election.
Bring it on!
Given the way the remain vote was often concentrated in metropolitan areas. If the Tories became the party of Brexit, and that was the sole criteria for peoples votes, then they would win 421 seats against 229 for the other parties.
In practice it wouldn't just be an election on Brexit and UKIP would be splitting the leave vote. But at the very least it is fair to say that for every Richmond Park style seat they lose they will likely pick up a few elsewhere in the country.
and any Tory MP unwilling to abide by the decision of the British people should be deselected.
NRS said:
JawKnee said:
I picked up on the exact wording because they were the exact words. Don4l was trying to extrapolate a referendum result into being representetive of the majority of people in this country, which is quite a leap of faith. The truth is a bit different. It represents a proportion of people who were registered to vote, a proportion of which who decided to vote.
Yes, I understand that's how referenda work and it was the largest turnout in however many years but let's not pretend that by virtue it means the majority of people in this country think that way.
It would be ok if you were consistent with that, but for example you tried to justify that the public voted for Corbyn, when it a small club of people that did - of which some people who had joined the club weren't allowed to vote. Therefore the correct wording is some of the public (0.5% of them) voted for him. You weren't being picky about exact words then. It's also strange how it was ok to listen to a tiny percentage of the public then (and not the MPs who tried to get rid of him) yet now the MPs MUST be involved (I actually agree they should - but that is a separate issue). It's the lack of any consistency that makes it somewhat pointless to listen to you. Your quote:Yes, I understand that's how referenda work and it was the largest turnout in however many years but let's not pretend that by virtue it means the majority of people in this country think that way.
[quote]Any member of the public is entitled to join the party and vote for the leader. Therefore, the public are voting for Corbyn. His party's vote share increased in England at the last local elections. His popularity is only increasing.
JawKnee said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm inconsistent? At no point have I suggested the majority of British people support Corbyn.
Your arguing about the "majority" means either:- An absolute majority - which then means basically none of our governments have ever had permission to be in power.
- You're being picky with words - which there are then lots of examples of you doing the same (misusing words to try and make your point, such as the Corbyn one I posted).
Oilchange said:
Would you say this had the vote gone the other way?
Also why not say the same when electing a government? Apart from the fact we'd never actually get one elected...Trabi601 said:
Why shouldn't we insist that there was a threshold of 50% of registered voters?
JagLover said:
and any Tory MP unwilling to abide by the decision of the British people should be deselected.
What about their constituents if they voted the other way? Obviously the same would go for the other parties.Trabi601 said:
If you've just narrowly won a referendum, but got the result you wanted, then it's absolutely fine that only around 35% of the eligible voters supported it.
But less voted against it.If you start counting votes for one side or the other from people who didn't actually vote, then you leave it open for MPs to frig the result of a vote by choosing the question. Which seems to be exactly what you want this time, but you may not wish for it next time!
NerveAgent said:
Is there any opinion on how different areas will vote should there be an election?
Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
It all depends on whether the Tories are perceived as fighting for Brexit or fighting against it. Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
Jimboka said:
'When you are in a hole, stop digging'.. May & co should heed this advice.
Surely she will have to go if they lose the appeal.
May is the most popular leader the Tories have had in a long time.Surely she will have to go if they lose the appeal.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/tories-18-poi...
Quite why she should resign due to the actions of judges is a mystery.
If we end up needing another election she should hopefully win it and take the opportunity to purge any remaining Remainers at the same time.
NerveAgent said:
Is there any opinion on how different areas will vote should there be an election?
Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
Same here but my local MP is Raab Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
NerveAgent said:
Is there any opinion on how different areas will vote should there be an election?
Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
There would be a bloodbath in the candidate selection process. Especially on the Labour side.Are traditional labour areas going to start vote Tory and/or UKIP?
I live in an affluent Tory but strong remain area. Would that likely swing towards lib dems maybe?
Farage would leave UKIP and set up a new party, leaving behind Carswell, Evans and their cohorts with an unfunded party.
LibDems would end up with 2 seats and Clegg would still be telling us that he had don a great job.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff