The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Pyrotequila 403]

But if you couldn't be bothered to vote, then as far as I'm concerned you have no say in what happens.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

25 minutes ago, Pyrotequila said:

But if you couldn't be bothered to vote, then as far as I'm concerned you have no say in what happens.

So those who don't vote don't have to pay taxes or are not subject to the law?

 

And what about those deemed too you to vote by virtue of their age. 

 

I'm sorry but when the news says the attacker was apprehended by a member of the public they don't mean that the attacker was apprehended by a citizen who voted in the 2016 referendum. They mean a member of the public.

 

The majority of the public didn't vote to remain but then the majority of the public didn't vote to leave either. As I am fed up of saying, neither leave or remain could attract even 40% of the electorate therefore 'the public' isn't being betrayed if the decision is taken to sack off Brexit as a really bad idea.

[Baron99 795]

5 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That once again there is no majority among the public to leave the EU therefore the default position stays, which is to remain in the EU.

72.21% of eligible voters, voted of which the motion was carried by 51.89%.

 

I'd say that's a clear indication to leave. Would you care to explain your 'Default' conclusion & back it up with the maths? 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

72.21% of eligible voters, voted of which the motion was carried by 51.89%.

 

I'd say that's a clear indication to leave. Would you care to explain your 'Default' conclusion & back it up with the maths? 

Which equates to 37% of eligible voters.

 

Convention in pretty much anything in life is that if a change is suggested and support for that change is tested, unless a clear majority for that change is expressed, things remain the same.

 

If neither position can attract the support of even 40%, never mind a clear majority, there is no legal, democratic or moral obligation to make that change.

 

if Brexit is sacked off, some people will be upset, even more people will be delighted but NOBODY is being betrayed.

[WiseOwl182 10]

3 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Which equates to 37% of eligible voters.

 

Convention in pretty much anything in life is that if a change is suggested and support for that change is tested, unless a clear majority for that change is expressed, things remain the same.

 

If neither position can attract the support of even 40%, never mind a clear majority, there is no legal, democratic or moral obligation to make that change.

 

if Brexit is sacked off, some people will be upset, even more people will be delighted but NOBODY is being betrayed.

 

Speaking of major changes, what proportion of the electorate voted for the Maastricht Treaty? Or the Rome Treaty in 2004?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 

Speaking of major changes, what proportion of the electorate voted for the Maastricht Treaty? Or the Rome Treaty in 2004?

Presumably the same proportion as voted for the Thatcher and Blair governments who signed those treaties.

 

That's how democracy works. You elect a government and they do stuff. If you don't like it you vote for a different lot next time round.

[WiseOwl182 10]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Presumably the same proportion as voted for the Thatcher and Blair governments who signed those treaties.

 

That's how democracy works. You elect a government and they do stuff. If you don't like it you vote for a different lot next time round.

(Major, not Thatcher).

 

And after you've voted them out, you have to undo the "stuff" too, such as, say, voting to leave the EU.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

9 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

(Major, not Thatcher).

 

And after you've voted them out, you have to undo the "stuff" too, such as, say, voting to leave the EU.

My apologies, it was John Major.

 

Anyhow the point still stands. We elect governments and vote for them again if we are happy with what they are doing. We vote them out if we're not.

[OPEN BORDERS 10]

37 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

72.21% of eligible voters, voted of which the motion was carried by 51.89%.

 

I'd say that's a clear indication to leave. Would you care to explain your 'Default' conclusion & back it up with the maths? 

You are wasting your time my friend.

TCH is in total denial of the referendum result.

[WiseOwl182 10]

3 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We vote them out if we're not.

And, as I said, we then vote in a referendum to tidy up what we didn't like. 

[nikki-red 308]

As we already have a Brexit thread can we get back on topic (The Labour party) now please?

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

7 hours ago, banjodeano said:

Labour has asked the BBC for unseen footage of last week’s Question Time and demanded a correction during next week’s episode as a row over the show’s treatment of Diane Abbott deepened. 

The party has made a formal complaint to the broadcaster over what it called the “unacceptable” treatment of Ms Abbott, the shadow home secretary.

 

The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was interrupted twice as many times as the Conservative MP on the panel, justice minister Rory Stewart, according to Labour.

 

 

The show’s new host, Fiona Bruce, is also reported to have made a joke during the warm-up, part of which implied Ms Abbott had been given her shadow cabinet role because of her past relationship with Jeremy Corbyn. The BBC refused to confirm or deny the claim.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-question-time-fiona-bruce-bbc-video-footage-poll-labour-a8737161.html?fbclid=IwAR3JF3TvqoFhpE6FaREN94uiWZSl9EFNZFAwhKLbrvKirYe01QdCOATKfy8

Let's be honest banjodeano, she certainly does not get the MP gig  because of her superior brain power does she. What worries me are the Liebour voters who persist in returning her to Parliament election after election. The mind boggles.

 

Angel1.