Tweet
Only with buffoons!! We could fondly remeber the days when music was "real", beer was real, and grass was not just something one played football on!
-
-
Lol...and the EU was just the plain old Common Market...yeah okay...when you put it like that...it's a deal!Originally posted by swaledale View PostComment
-
it'll be interesting to see what effect if any, Trump's victory has on brexit. He has always strongly backed brexit as opposed to Obhama's back of the queue stance. If the USA strongly back brexit, will that help in our negotiations with the eu?
Or being a politician, will he conveniently forget?Comment
-
I expect it will ahve no effect whatsoever, Trump's idea of free trade is one way, American exports OK, foreign imports no way!! Not that we have very much the yanks want to buy off us anyway, whereas we seem to be spending billions on military equipment!Comment
-
Some more stats for those still clinging on to the proportionate rhetoric...
The problem with a system, is that it is only fair when it suits your argument. Taking the number of votes stance, is it really fair that UKIP only have 1 seat?
For those on phones who can't click the link, in the last election, under a proportional system, UKIP should have had 82 seats, with the 3rd largest vote, yet only got 1 under our system.
You can't have it both ways fellas!Comment
-
Wasn't aware that we did want it both ways, not a fan of the current voting system in the UK thousands of voters disenfranchised, can't remember when my vote in an election actually counted! So a fairer voting system even If that meant UKIP won seats would not be a problem , indeed I'd welcome that because as with Trump its easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise, lt would be interesting to see what Farage would do if he actually had to come up with some policies and put them into practice!!Originally posted by AdiSalisbury View PostSome more stats for those still clinging on to the proportionate rhetoric...
The problem with a system, is that it is only fair when it suits your argument. Taking the number of votes stance, is it really fair that UKIP only have 1 seat?
For those on phones who can't click the link, in the last election, under a proportional system, UKIP should have had 82 seats, with the 3rd largest vote, yet only got 1 under our system.
You can't have it both ways fellas!
The elctoral college system in the States is even more bonkers - Clinton won the most votes, yet Trump is president??
Of course a referendum is a different matter, in my view it should never have been held and if it had been it should ahve been as a test of public opinion and have had certain qualifications, i.e.e minimum 75% voting and a 60% in favour, as it is we have a situation where a small majority of those who voted seem to be determining the future of the UK.
In any case our comments on how many voted were largely to correct the assertions amde by many that "A majority of the Uk people voted for Brexit" when clearly they did not or "Its the will of the people" when actually its the will of 37% of the people thems the facts which are conveniently overlooked, doesn't change the outcome of the vote I agree, but lets be accurate about these things!Comment
-
MAJORITY. ( the free dictionary ) The amount by which the greater number of votes cast as in an election EXCEEDS. The total number of remaining votes look and learnComment
-
C'mon mista...when, given that there were only two choices, did 37% for v 63% against/ admitted they didn't understand/ were unable to vote/ couldn't be bothered / weren't registered etc...ever equal a majority?Originally posted by mistaram View Post
As far as the USA is concerned, Trump was actually elected by a minority of the popular vote but has gone on to somehow have a huge practical, working majority...you've got to admit both examples bring any concept of 'majority' into question.Last edited by ramAnag; 12-11-2016, 03:35 PM.Comment
-
How can 37% of the population or 52% voting in favour be classed as "the will of the people? The majority of those who voted voted in favour so yes the will of the majority of those who voted - a majority in an election is one thing a majority of the British people is quite another and Anag has spelt out what happened in the US vote where a majority of votes were cast in favour of Clinton - the semantics are important because Brexit people are fond of quoting the will of the people when thats NOT the case.Originally posted by mistaram View PostComment
-
ramAnag. No of course I don't agree just pointing out what majority actually means This is all Camerons fault he was so confident remain would win he thought there was no need to set voting or percentage targets for the result If had put as much into that has did setting targets for unions to be able to take industrial action he may have got a different result Mind you he got his job with on 24% of ellligblle votes actually voting Tory I doubt either you or Swales would even mention the words majority or binding if remain had wonComment
-
It's not only the US system that is seriously flawed in this way. Harold Wilson had a good working majority of seats in the second 1974 election with fewer votes than Ted Heath. That's why the tories are trying to make the boundary changes.Comment
-
Ram59. Yes but they are only doing it because it guarantees them 30 more seats nothing to do with democracy at allComment
-
Although the Boundary commission is independent and the reorganisation is to reduce the number of MP's from 650 to 600 and to make constituencies with equal numbers of people as far as is possible, unfortunately this does favour the Tories but then so does the jocks voting in the SNP!Originally posted by mistaram View PostComment
-
Absolutely agree with you Cameroon ****ed it up and all be cause he wanted to settle the in fighting in the Tory party!Originally posted by mistaram View PostComment
-
Swales Yes your spot on about the in fighting also the threat of Ukip Afraid we are in for a one party state for many years to come Sad to say I may have voted for the last timeComment
Comment