Jump to content

sheffbag

Members
  • Content Count

    2,257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sheffbag

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 13/09/1971

Personal Information

  • Location
    Rotherham
  • Interests
    mmmm
  • Occupation
    F/T lazy git

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si#countries There you go Halibut. Lower deathrate per million than France, Belgium, Spain and Italy. All of who have comparible populations and have been in lockdown a lot longer than us.
  2. Banjo and anna - quick question. Now your beloved Jc has been replaced by Starmer, will you still be voting Labour in any election you are allowed to vote in?
  3. You have based your whole 2500 votes argument on the Independent report that you quoted above on page 850. You claim party members where undermining the Labour Party committing potentially criminal acts but wont name any as you quoted on page 850 Its not really an argument is it. you got challenged on an opinion, tried to present it as a fact, got challenged on the fact and now saying that its wasn't a fact. I'll leave it there Banjo. Keep believing that JC would have been PM but the facts dont back you up.
  4. Nope, they were opinions and polls prior to the election which are based on a sample and prior to any results Facts are items based on the actual election results that are verified and accountable Fact 1 - Labour needed a minimum of 21000 votes to gain an outright majority Fact 2 Labour needed over 2000 votes plus the agreement of every other party bar the DUP in order to form a coalition Fact 3 The Conservative party needed less than 800 votes to gain an outright majority. There's your facts. Based on any way you look at it 800 is less than 2000 and 21000. Or alternatively Teresa May was very very very close to getting an outright majority There is of course Fact 4. Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn lost to possibly the weakest PM in living memory in 2015 and then again in 2019. I respect your opinion but if you are trying to base it on facts then you leave yourself open to challenge and the actual results don't support you. I can however ask you which members do you think were undermining JC during the election since you didnt answer that last time
  5. Banjo, to quote one of your favourite phrases. answer the question So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority) or 776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories Which looks more likely? There are 3 alternate scenarios with regard to the 2015 election which are different to t5he actual result (the one that matters) Labour win outright - Nowhere near. see the stats on page 849 showing they needed 21000+ votes for Labour to win the election minimum (remember Tories only need less than a thousand to get outright majority) Labour form a coalition by winning the 7 most marginal seats by getting 2227 votes (your stats), uniting 4 other parties and an independent and persuading them to accept JC as the PM and keeping them together? Still three times less likely than Teresa May getting a majority. Tories gain 776 votes to get the 7 seats it requires to gain an overall majority Which of those was the most possible? You really are clutching at straws if you believe Labour were "close to winning" (define winning, is that Labour outright or a coalition). The facts back me up Which party members are you on about and did they win their seats?
  6. The claim by the Independant that you are using has the following scenario Labour win the 7 seats available with the fewest majority that the Conservaties won/held Then every other party joins together including the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats and the 1 independent MP (who was a Unionist so why would they form an alliance with 5 other parties) Except the Lib Dems had already ruled out forming a coalition https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/22/lib-dems-no-coalition-tim-farron-general-election All the leaders of all the parties in this hypothetical situation would then have to agree that Saint Jez would lead the coalition as PM That is the fantasy scenario that the Independant created. If you are clinging onto that hope as proof that "i think they were close to winning" (your words not mine post 10179) then that is a very far fetched theory. Factually is your comment of JC being 2227 votes away from being PM correct? If the stars aligned and the 5 other parties (including the independent MP) all agreed to have a coalition under JC (the cabinet would have been interesting) then yes JC could have had a chance of becoming PM. But that is one far fetched position, would you not agree? When was the last time so many parties joined to form a government I will counter that point you have made with the fact that Teresa May only needed 776 votes for an outright majority. No need for other parties, no need to try and form very difficult alliances and maintain them. So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority) or 776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories Which looks more likely? I stand by my post and the facts. Labour were never close to winning the election as you have stated. And the Tories were roughly 3 times more likely to win an outright majority than JC having the chance to be PM based on votes alone.
  7. Unfounded and completely inaccurate. Below is a link to the marginal seats results https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/ge2017-marginal-seats-and-turnout/ For labour to win the 12 seats out of the 31 most marginal seats where they came second then it needed a swing of 2844 votes. Thats just for 12 seats . From the same 31 marginal seats the Tories would have needed only 1483 votes to win a further 10 seats. To gain 8 seats and an overall majority they would have needed only 776 In order to gain 50 by taking 25 Conservative seats so doubling the impact would take 21209 votes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8067/ (download and read the report) However for The Conservaties to win the same number of seats from Labour it would have only taken 23513 votes. Labour were never close to winning in 2017, The Tories only need 3.7% of the votes Labour would have needed to get an overall majority if you want to use number of votes per seat than Labour were. This is only assuming that Labour took Tory seats. If they needed more than 25 seats it gets even worse for Labour
  8. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-derbyshire-52198488?fbclid=IwAR1_OjYUmz1gHiDm4eBznUMBTfB-NbliEsBNzDL8XC7pI95RxNmBe-5kIZo Lovely woman
  9. This may get me suspended but stfu for once Halibut. a 55 year old man with a pregnant partner is in intensive care fighting for his life and you post about his political view. Sheffield Forum never fails to show me the best and worst of people. The worst thing is, i was half expecting to see something like this on here this morning. I hope the Prime Minister pulls through safely and can get back to his work as soon as he is able to.
  10. HAd a quick look at the JC4PM page on facebook. That looks dead now and its changed its web address to Corbyn4PM but there is a new group called "Let's Help Get a Labour Government for the People 2024" which is using the JC4PM web address. The reaction to Starmer winning is interesting
  11. If you believe the Blair haters (you know the ones, the "true" labour fans) they haven't been in power for over 40 years. Well done to Labour for voting in a leader who might actually win an election. Be interesting to see if our Corbyn lovers will support the Sir on here.
  12. Sheff council car parks are now free from today . Hopefully the hospitals will follow suit to help the staff having to go there
  13. Disagree, he appeals to the American voters and that is all that matters. He still will be able to point to the economy and unemployment etc before the virus. What can the opposition cite that they would have done different? Big businesses hate him anyway before or after he got elected, the media hated him, the critics hated him. He still won despite the opposition having the previous incumbent as an incredibly popular President and the opportunity for a first female president. He will win again
  14. He's speaking to Americans remember, some hick alabama brother/sister/husband/wife (same people) would probably understand that better.
  15. You didnt read the post i was replying to I guess. it was a reply to a negative comment on the decision by the supermarkets to limit people buying full trolleys. I know the internet is full of pictures of selfish idiots trailing out of supermarkets at 6 am with their trolleys. I know there are reports of people buying stuff then trying to sell it in the car park I know the spar near the train station is now selling toilet roll at £1 a roll!! My point was, the supermarkets are trying to limit people buying goods and in true SF fashion someone was complaining about it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.