"1.9% above the 50% threshold" - so that would be 3.8% ahead of the other side.
Very mischievous spinning of the numbers by OGH!
Nah. Mischievous spinning would be:
"...you can hear the argument developing that the Leave victory, which only 37.5% of registered voters supported, does not have the same democratic legitimacy as has been suggested."
Nah, 65.3% didn't vote to remain in the EU.
See how disingenuous the remainers are. They take those who chose not to vote and decide to allocate them to the remain camp.
There is a case, with major constitutional changes, for the argument that a majority of registered voters need to vote for it... after all if you can't be arsed to vote, you do not really feel strongly about the need for change.
But it's all academic as far as Brexit is concerned - too late now. And at least this way Farage becomes an irrelevance!
I am afraid I am firmly of the opinion that if you can't be bothered to get out and vote you don't deserve to have your non-vote counted.
This opinion may be a tad idealistic, but if you are genuinely uncertain about which way to vote there is an argument for not voting and trusting your fellow citizens/subjects to vote on your behalf - an argument which does not damn non-voters as being apathetic and uninterested.
This argument is still in favour of only a simple majority being required, rather than any tricksy turnout threshold (which is in any case made a nonsense of by people who are registered at more than one address entirely legitimately for local elections, but who cannot vote multiple times in a national election).
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
Shockingly this seems to be what the majority of Scottish voters wanted.
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
Making such minor changes to taxation rates looks very much like trying to cause deliberate aggravation.
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
Shockingly this seems to be what the majority of Scottish voters wanted.
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
"1.9% above the 50% threshold" - so that would be 3.8% ahead of the other side.
Very mischievous spinning of the numbers by OGH!
Nah. Mischievous spinning would be:
"...you can hear the argument developing that the Leave victory, which only 37.5% of registered voters supported, does not have the same democratic legitimacy as has been suggested."
Nah, 65.3% didn't vote to remain in the EU.
See how disingenuous the remainers are. They take those who chose not to vote and decide to allocate them to the remain camp.
There is a case, with major constitutional changes, for the argument that a majority of registered voters need to vote for it... after all if you can't be arsed to vote, you do not really feel strongly about the need for change.
But it's all academic as far as Brexit is concerned - too late now. And at least this way Farage becomes an irrelevance!
I am afraid I am firmly of the opinion that if you can't be bothered to get out and vote you don't deserve to have your non-vote counted.
This opinion may be a tad idealistic, but if you are genuinely uncertain about which way to vote there is an argument for not voting and trusting your fellow citizens/subjects to vote on your behalf - an argument which does not damn non-voters as being apathetic and uninterested.
This argument is still in favour of only a simple majority being required, rather than any tricksy turnout threshold (which is in any case made a nonsense of by people who are registered at more than one address entirely legitimately for local elections, but who cannot vote multiple times in a national election).
I think I would be more sympathetic to that view (and I am not in any way really arguing against it) if the undecided at least turned up and spoiled their paper. That is a positive statement of either indecision or disgust at the whole process. Just not bothering is another matter.
If these start to be upheld then you can hear the argument developing that the Leave victory, by 1.9% above the 50% threshold, does not have the same democratic legitimacy as has been suggested.
However TM did fight the election on a Leave manifesto.
As did Labour, for that matter. At least on a manifesto that said that the will of the people would be respected and that Brexit was going to happen regardless.
This is an amazing result. The Conservatives have usually won this ward recently. The Lib Dems best result this century is a win by 50 votes. They have won tonight with a majority of over 400.
It's quite obvious that with these local elections the "oooooh Jeremy Corbyn......"voters cannot be arsed to vote. They have better things to doing like make quinoa, or something like that.
This is an amazing result. The Conservatives have usually won this ward recently. The Lib Dems best result this century is a win by 50 votes. They have won tonight with a majority of over 400.
I really do not think that you can read anything into any of these results . I couldn't be arsed to vote in this kind of election and I am at the sadder end of political anoraks...and I really couldn't give a flying fuck.....
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested that Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign, turn over documents as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, according to people familiar with the matter.
Nicky Morgan getting flayed alive on QT. Delicious.
QT tonight came from Knowsley, the safest Labour seat in the country in absolute terms where Labour got an astonishing 85% of the vote in June and the Tories just 9%. Indeed it currently has the biggest majority of 42,214 for any MP, not just Labour and in fact is so overwhelmingly Labour Corbyn's party won it by even more in June than John Major won Huntingdon in 1992 (previously the biggest majority for any party since universal suffrage).
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
Shockingly this seems to be what the majority of Scottish voters wanted.
Living in Scotland, apparently. Sky News were interviewing people working for a fish packing company some of whom live in England and some who live in Scotland.
The interview was from Eyemouth with one worker, living in Eyemouth and the other in Berwick. The Eyemouth worker and the boss were not impressed
Well they voted for devolution as did the Welsh.You have to accept the result of the referendum.
Shockingly this seems to be what the majority of Scottish voters wanted.
I keep seeing comments on PB.com, and the wider MSM, about the EU Referendum being a close result, with the implication that it was the closest referendum result in human history, and that because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence, but you know what I mean! [..] The result was LEAVE 52%, REMAIN 48%. Or, for fans of decimal points, LEAVE 51.9%, REMAIN 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The nearest-run thing indeed!
Or was it? Have there been any referendums with closer results? Were they regarded as illegitimate? Or did the aforementioned results result in sour grapes from the losing side? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I can give you two relatively recent (ie. within the last 20-ish years) referendum results that were much closer.
I keep seeing comments on PB.com, and the wider MSM, about the EU Referendum being a close result, with the implication that it was the closest referendum result in human history, and that because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence, but you know what I mean! [..] The result was LEAVE 52%, REMAIN 48%. Or, for fans of decimal points, LEAVE 51.9%, REMAIN 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The nearest-run thing indeed!
Or was it? Have there been any referendums with closer results? Were they regarded as illegitimate? Or did the aforementioned results result in sour grapes from the losing side? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I can give you two relatively recent (ie. within the last 20-ish years) referendum results that were much closer.
I don't think there is a suggestion that the other two referendum results were distorted by Russian money/influence and a total disregard for spending limits?
I keep seeing comments on PB.com, and the wider MSM, about the EU Referendum being a close result, with the implication that it was the closest referendum result in human history, and that because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence, but you know what I mean! [..] The result was LEAVE 52%, REMAIN 48%. Or, for fans of decimal points, LEAVE 51.9%, REMAIN 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The nearest-run thing indeed!
Or was it? Have there been any referendums with closer results? Were they regarded as illegitimate? Or did the aforementioned results result in sour grapes from the losing side? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I can give you two relatively recent (ie. within the last 20-ish years) referendum results that were much closer.
I don't think there is a suggestion that the other two referendum results were distorted by Russian money/influence and a total disregard for spending limits?
There was an undercurrent of, shall we say, “moaning” from the losing side, mostly to do with what exactly constituted spoilt ballots, as well as some campaign funding grumbles, though to this date there has NOT been a third referendum, and Quebec has remained part of Canada and the Commonwealth.
No - all the conservative party accept we are leaving the EU - non of the rebels will support a remain proposition
Not even Clarke or Soubry?
Clarke and Soubry both said today we are leaving the EU in live interviews
I think tbh most Remainers accept we are leaving. I certainly do (sadly).
Same here. And I wish the leavers would get on with leaving without all this melodrama.
Unfortunately some politicians (who have a lot more influence on matters than either you or I) do not believe that and are willing to do almost anything to make sure we don't leave. The most recent example being Andrew Adonis today.
Yes , I was surprised at Andrew Adonis , always seemed a sensible diligent minister.On another point why did the government not make the referendum legally binding ?
I would suggest arrogance. They never for a moment thought they were going to lose.
Insofar as we have a tradition of referendums, they are advisory, maintaining the supremacy of parliament. The AV one was the exception, with specific clauses written in to ensure that a yes vote would have required the minister to enact the changes, put there at the insistence of the LDs. As ever the LDs had a good eye for the detail; for the big picture, not so much.
This is an amazing result. The Conservatives have usually won this ward recently. The Lib Dems best result this century is a win by 50 votes. They have won tonight with a majority of over 400.
I really do not think that you can read anything into any of these results . I couldn't be arsed to vote in this kind of election and I am at the sadder end of political anoraks...and I really couldn't give a flying fuck.....
Politics tends to be about those who can be bothered.
"1.9% above the 50% threshold" - so that would be 3.8% ahead of the other side. Very mischievous spinning of the numbers by OGH!
Nah. Mischievous spinning would be: "...you can hear the argument developing that the Leave victory, which only 37.5% of registered voters supported, does not have the same democratic legitimacy as has been suggested."
People who can't be arsed to vote don't have any say in the matter.
They were being asked to vote on a meaningless question. Would you get out of bed on a cold summer`s morning to do that, still less go down to the polling station?
Sounds like you're admitting you abstained. How stupid is that?
What would the Ashes be, without yet another spectacular middle-order batting collapse from England?
Spectacular is overgenerous, I think. Utterly tame and predictable is more like it. Credit to Malan - a fine innings, and he was furious for throwing it away at the end.
I keep seeing comments on PB.com, and the wider MSM, about the EU Referendum being a close result, with the implication that it was the closest referendum result in human history, and that because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence, but you know what I mean! [..] The result was LEAVE 52%, REMAIN 48%. Or, for fans of decimal points, LEAVE 51.9%, REMAIN 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The nearest-run thing indeed!
Or was it? Have there been any referendums with closer results? Were they regarded as illegitimate? Or did the aforementioned results result in sour grapes from the losing side? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I can give you two relatively recent (ie. within the last 20-ish years) referendum results that were much closer.
I don't think there is a suggestion that the other two referendum results were distorted by Russian money/influence and a total disregard for spending limits?
That 73p worth of Russian ads must have been super effective.
Comments
This argument is still in favour of only a simple majority being required, rather than any tricksy turnout threshold (which is in any case made a nonsense of by people who are registered at more than one address entirely legitimately for local elections, but who cannot vote multiple times in a national election).
LAB: 58.0% (+8.9)
CON: 17.7% (+11.2)
LDEM: 12.1% (+12.1)
GRN: 6.9% (+1.0)
IND: 5.3% (+5.3)
Labour HOLD.
No UKIP (-25.2) and other Ind (-11.3) as prev.
https://twitter.com/Fergoodness/status/941326713509875712
Lab 765 43.4% (+3.4)
Shevington Ind 552 31.3% (+5)
Con 402 22.8% (+11.5)
Grn 30 1.7% (-1.9)
LD 15 0.9%
Lab hold
Con 216
Lab 197
Ind 86
Con gain from Lab
Lab 396
Con 360
LD 25
Lab hold
Lab -3.1%
Con +27.4%
I really do not think that you can read anything into any of these results . I couldn't be arsed to vote in this kind of election and I am at the sadder end of political anoraks...and I really couldn't give a flying fuck.....
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested that Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign, turn over documents as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, according to people familiar with the matter.
So hardly a surprise Morgan had a hard time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowsley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
I keep seeing comments on PB.com, and the wider MSM, about the EU Referendum being a close result, with the implication that it was the closest referendum result in human history, and that because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence, but you know what I mean!
[..]
The result was LEAVE 52%, REMAIN 48%. Or, for fans of decimal points, LEAVE 51.9%, REMAIN 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The nearest-run thing indeed!
Or was it? Have there been any referendums with closer results? Were they regarded as illegitimate? Or did the aforementioned results result in sour grapes from the losing side? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I can give you two relatively recent (ie. within the last 20-ish years) referendum results that were much closer.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
Credit to Malan - a fine innings, and he was furious for throwing it away at the end.
New thread, btw.