|
GE 2019
Dec 18, 2019 14:28:18 GMT 1
Post by venceremos on Dec 18, 2019 14:28:18 GMT 1
"Not including a second referendum would also have been a disaster. Labour lost a lot of older votes - it would have lost a lot of younger votes instead. It lost in the old industrial towns - it would have lost in the cities instead". It lost in old industrial cities too I can assure you! Birmingham Northfield, Glasgow North East (a remain constituency), Kensington (split remain vote), Stoke (2 seats), West Brom (2 seats), Wolverhampton (2 seats). That's really only 7 old industrial city losses out of 60 losses overall. On a no second referendum platform, it wouldn't have won Putney or held onto seats like Cambridge, Exeter & Canterbury and continued to dominate the major English conurbations, where a lot of younger remainer voters live. I'm not suggesting it didn't need to retain the urban town seats in leave areas, I'm just saying it couldn't appease those voters and hope to retain the more affluent urban and metropolitan seats in remain areas. Labour had no chance of winning if some leavers didn't go for the second referendum choice but it had no chance of winning if it ditched remain either.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 18, 2019 14:45:59 GMT 1
Post by darkshrew on Dec 18, 2019 14:45:59 GMT 1
Matt Hancock a disaster of an interview this morning; cannot stand up to questions from Dan Walker ! Number of nurses (n) will increase by 50,000 but the answer is not n+50,000 because "you do not understand the difference between gross and net" Since when has gross and net been an issue in looking at number of employees - FTE vs number of employees, yes; but net vs gross ? This is going to be a government of lies and spin. They are clearly working on the principle that if they say it often enough people will believe it because we cannot be arsed with the detail. So these soundbites will become a perceived truth; it will be re-quoted as a "fact" that there are 50,000 more nurses regardless of reality because the inconvenient and deceitful explanation of the number that will be edited out. The non-existent new nurses will work in the 40 new hospitals; which of course do not exist either. Yeah I watched that, not easy viewing, pretty cringe-worthy. I understand though why the 19,000 is included in their 50,000 number. My explanation would be if you have 100 nurses today and typically an average of 19 leave every year (stress, retirement etc.), you currently have 19 new nurses coming in to replace them to keep it at a level of 100. If you can stop those 19 leaving, whilst adding 31 'completely new' nurses to the system (along with the 19 new you already have planned) then you'll have 150 at the end of the program. Hence you see an increase of 50. Simply stating it as '50 new nurses' though is understandably confusing. Probably easier just to say they plan to increase the number of nurses employed by the NHS by 50,000. I thought that too; but when it was explained in the paper the answer was (using your example) 131 not 150 - you get the idea that they are making it up as they go along. A bit like the new hospitals pledge it looks like it is (possibly deliberately) overly complicated. Why not just say that the number of nurses in the NHS will go from 100 to 150 ?
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 18, 2019 15:43:03 GMT 1
Post by zenfootball2 on Dec 18, 2019 15:43:03 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/tories-young-voters-anger"This is partly down to a misunderstanding of what we mean by “youth” – in the 18 to 24 and 24 to 35 age brackets, the preferences are solid and overwhelming – 3:1 progressive parties to Conservative/Brexit parties. Something interesting happens when you alter the cutoff ages – if your next age bracket is 30 to 39, as in a recent YouGov poll, that drops to 2:1, a significantly closer ratio but still, in polling terms, conclusive – a 30-point lead for the left over the right. However, when your age bracket is 35 to 44, as in this ICM poll, the Tories are actually one point ahead of Labour. As a political entity, “young" "More than nine million voters were registered in 2019. An estimated 37% of those were duplicates, and approximately two million were changes of address. That leaves four million, the majority of whom are young. Even while various pollsters are happy to predict that they will break 2:1 Labour (which is actually quite a cautious estimate: if they’re young, they turn out and they vote tactically, the Labour share could be higher), they have so far been unwilling to build these voters into their predictions." a choesive alliance between the opposition partys could have done better in tapping into this vote. if nothing elese the leaders /former leaders got this badly wrong
|
|
|
Post by TheFoz on Dec 18, 2019 17:43:22 GMT 1
I can’t help but feel the Labour Party are very hung up on the Tories having 2 female prime ministers and they haven’t even had a female leader.
Looking at the list of potential female leaders, I really wouldn’t appoint anyone apart from Cooper. Simply pick the best candidate regardless of gender rather than appointing someone for the sake of equality.
I was fully behind Corbyn but the party needs to go in a slightly different direction with all of those lost northern constituencies.
Get someone like Andy Burnham or Dan Jarvis in and their popularity would most definitely increase. They are still going to get the votes from the left but are going to appeal to those lost working class constituencies.
Long-Bailey or Phillips would be a disaster for the party.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Dec 18, 2019 19:30:09 GMT 1
I can’t help but feel the Labour Party are very hung up on the Tories having 2 female prime ministers and they haven’t even had a female leader. Looking at the list of potential female leaders, I really wouldn’t appoint anyone apart from Cooper. Simply pick the best candidate regardless of gender rather than appointing someone for the sake of equality. I was fully behind Corbyn but the party needs to go in a slightly different direction with all of those lost northern constituencies. Get someone like Andy Burnham or Dan Jarvis in and their popularity would most definitely increase. They are still going to get the votes from the left but are going to appeal to those lost working class constituencies. Long-Bailey or Phillips would be a disaster for the party. Burnham needs a by-election but mostly doing good work up here with the homeless. Would welcome him applying.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 18, 2019 19:48:23 GMT 1
I can’t help but feel the Labour Party are very hung up on the Tories having 2 female prime ministers and they haven’t even had a female leader. Looking at the list of potential female leaders, I really wouldn’t appoint anyone apart from Cooper. Simply pick the best candidate regardless of gender rather than appointing someone for the sake of equality. I was fully behind Corbyn but the party needs to go in a slightly different direction with all of those lost northern constituencies. Get someone like Andy Burnham or Dan Jarvis in and their popularity would most definitely increase. They are still going to get the votes from the left but are going to appeal to those lost working class constituencies. Long-Bailey or Phillips would be a disaster for the party. I think a big danger for Labour is it could again descend into civil war and in-fighting. Should a more 'centrist' candidate prevail, will the left feel it has no obligation to respect the result given the shenanigans that went on in an attempt to oust Corbyn? If a left candidate emerges, will we see a repeat of the 'chicken coup' antics from the party's right. Whoever ultimately succeeds Corbyn, the wider party has to unite behind them if they are to stand any chance of challenging the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 18, 2019 20:40:44 GMT 1
"Not including a second referendum would also have been a disaster. Labour lost a lot of older votes - it would have lost a lot of younger votes instead. It lost in the old industrial towns - it would have lost in the cities instead". It lost in old industrial cities too I can assure you! Birmingham Northfield, Glasgow North East (a remain constituency), Kensington (split remain vote), Stoke (2 seats), West Brom (2 seats), Wolverhampton (2 seats). That's really only 7 old industrial city losses out of 60 losses overall. On a no second referendum platform, it wouldn't have won Putney or held onto seats like Cambridge, Exeter & Canterbury and continued to dominate the major English conurbations, where a lot of younger remainer voters live. I'm not suggesting it didn't need to retain the urban town seats in leave areas, I'm just saying it couldn't appease those voters and hope to retain the more affluent urban and metropolitan seats in remain areas. Labour had no chance of winning if some leavers didn't go for the second referendum choice but it had no chance of winning if it ditched remain either. Labour were truly on the horns of a dilemma, facing an almost impossible task in keeping its voting coalition together. But I feel its failure to come down on one side or the other was more damaging than had it backed either leave or remain. Backtracking on the 'no second referendum' pledge left it looking weak and indecisive - even to remain voters It had two options: 1) Honour the result of the referendum (and its 2017 pledge) and convince remain voters that its better to have a Labour government negotiating the future terms of our relationship than the Tories - a vote for the Lib Dems simply lets the Tories in. 2) Go for a second referendum while backing remain. Make the case that all forms of Brexit would be damaging for the country, with the most vulnerable communities being hit hardest. For me option 1 would - strategically at least - have been the best choice. Option 2 leaves Labour wide open to the accusation of telling voters it knows best, rather than listening, and keeps a pledge which served it well in 2017. Labour was dealt a difficult hand, no doubt. The flip-flopping from 'honour referendum' to 'second ref and back remain' to 'second ref, leader neutral' couldn't have been more damaging. Now, though, I believe Labour should abstain on the WA bill. When the Tories' Brexit unravels Labour needs to ensure it is fully owned by Johnson et all
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 18, 2019 21:53:48 GMT 1
Birmingham Northfield, Glasgow North East (a remain constituency), Kensington (split remain vote), Stoke (2 seats), West Brom (2 seats), Wolverhampton (2 seats). That's really only 7 old industrial city losses out of 60 losses overall. On a no second referendum platform, it wouldn't have won Putney or held onto seats like Cambridge, Exeter & Canterbury and continued to dominate the major English conurbations, where a lot of younger remainer voters live. I'm not suggesting it didn't need to retain the urban town seats in leave areas, I'm just saying it couldn't appease those voters and hope to retain the more affluent urban and metropolitan seats in remain areas. Labour had no chance of winning if some leavers didn't go for the second referendum choice but it had no chance of winning if it ditched remain either. Labour were truly on the horns of a dilemma, facing an almost impossible task in keeping its voting coalition together. But I feel its failure to come down on one side or the other was more damaging than had it backed either leave or remain. Backtracking on the 'no second referendum' pledge left it looking weak and indecisive - even to remain voters It had two options: 1) Honour the result of the referendum (and its 2017 pledge) and convince remain voters that its better to have a Labour government negotiating the future terms of our relationship than the Tories - a vote for the Lib Dems simply lets the Tories in. 2) Go for a second referendum while backing remain. Make the case that all forms of Brexit would be damaging for the country, with the most vulnerable communities being hit hardest. For me option 1 would - strategically at least - have been the best choice. Option 2 leaves Labour wide open to the accusation of telling voters it knows best, rather than listening, and keeps a pledge which served it well in 2017. Labour was dealt a difficult hand, no doubt. The flip-flopping from 'honour referendum' to 'second ref and back remain' to 'second ref, leader neutral' couldn't have been more damaging. Now, though, I believe Labour should abstain on the WA bill. When the Tories' Brexit unravels Labour needs to ensure it is fully owned by Johnson et all Yes, that was its dilemma right there. Second referendum while backing remain (your option 2) would have put any negotiations with the EU on hold pending the outcome. Some risk that the EU decide they've waited long enough, apart from the domestic objections. Still preferable to option 1 though Option 1 was a non-starter if Labour wanted to hold onto most of its remain voters. For most remain voters, brexit was the biggest issue because it directly impacts what the country can do in any other sphere. Once Labour committed to leaving, its remain supporters would have felt they'd been sold out. It would have taken me a long time to consider voting Labour again for sure. I think Labour did what it could in the end. The sad thing for me is the clarity came too late - it could have done a lot more between 2016 and this autumn. Brexit has shown the very worst of British politics. Whatever happens from now on (and I'm pessimistic about that) it's already been an abject humiliation and diminished our self-confidence and our international standing. It seems as though damage limitation is the best that can be achieved now.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Dec 18, 2019 22:08:09 GMT 1
If anyone thinks the new Labour leader is going to be anything but loony left they are undoubtedly mistaken. Labour has shifted and are now run and controlled by momentum. Whoever Jon Lansman backs will be the new leader. Labour mps will moan but they'll have no way of stopping it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Dec 18, 2019 22:35:08 GMT 1
If another left wing monentum candidate is elected as leader, I think many in the Labour party will seriously think about splitting to form a New Labour social democratic party. Pure socialist ideals are all well and good but if you have no chance of getting elected then a total waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 19, 2019 0:04:56 GMT 1
Labour were truly on the horns of a dilemma, facing an almost impossible task in keeping its voting coalition together. But I feel its failure to come down on one side or the other was more damaging than had it backed either leave or remain. Backtracking on the 'no second referendum' pledge left it looking weak and indecisive - even to remain voters It had two options: 1) Honour the result of the referendum (and its 2017 pledge) and convince remain voters that its better to have a Labour government negotiating the future terms of our relationship than the Tories - a vote for the Lib Dems simply lets the Tories in. 2) Go for a second referendum while backing remain. Make the case that all forms of Brexit would be damaging for the country, with the most vulnerable communities being hit hardest. For me option 1 would - strategically at least - have been the best choice. Option 2 leaves Labour wide open to the accusation of telling voters it knows best, rather than listening, and keeps a pledge which served it well in 2017. Labour was dealt a difficult hand, no doubt. The flip-flopping from 'honour referendum' to 'second ref and back remain' to 'second ref, leader neutral' couldn't have been more damaging. Now, though, I believe Labour should abstain on the WA bill. When the Tories' Brexit unravels Labour needs to ensure it is fully owned by Johnson et all Yes, that was its dilemma right there. Second referendum while backing remain (your option 2) would have put any negotiations with the EU on hold pending the outcome. Some risk that the EU decide they've waited long enough, apart from the domestic objections. Still preferable to option 1 though Option 1 was a non-starter if Labour wanted to hold onto most of its remain voters. For most remain voters, brexit was the biggest issue because it directly impacts what the country can do in any other sphere. Once Labour committed to leaving, its remain supporters would have felt they'd been sold out. It would have taken me a long time to consider voting Labour again for sure. I think Labour did what it could in the end. The sad thing for me is the clarity came too late - it could have done a lot more between 2016 and this autumn. Brexit has shown the very worst of British politics. Whatever happens from now on (and I'm pessimistic about that) it's already been an abject humiliation and diminished our self-confidence and our international standing. It seems as though damage limitation is the best that can be achieved now. Where the votes was lost is crucial in FPTP, though, and the vast majority of seats were lost in leave areas. But it's almost academic now. Brexit will indeed be 'done' by the time the next election rolls round and, while lessons must be learned, it would be a mistake to try to re-fight the one just gone. shrewinjapan - was the Labour manifesto really far left? To me it seems its scattergun approach and failure to communicate an overarching vision (the green industrial revolution) were the problem, rather than the individual policies themselves. In short, far from building on 2017, Labour got itself in a right mess. Even the most ardent Labour remainer couldn't have watched Emily Thornberry on Question Time explaining how Labour would negotiate a better WA then she would campaign to stay in the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 19, 2019 8:44:11 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 8:44:11 GMT 1
So, I am reading in the Independent that Britain First are encouraging their members to join the Tory Party to help strengthen Johnson's position.
This is after Johnson was endorsed by Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson.
I have absolutely no idea why people like this would be attracted to a bloke who is supposed to be moving to the centre.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 19, 2019 8:44:15 GMT 1
It was always a very difficult task for Corbyn, it was always a fine line. Its why he was looking to sit on the fence for so long and try and stay impartial. I guess it comes down who would have looked elsewhere.
The Tories were able to get through this because they knew they could deliver Brexit and that a good few of their remain support would still do all they could to keep Corbyn out. Would that have been the same for Labour? I think it would have been. If they would have stuck with their pledge to respect the referendum result I think the Labour remain vote would have stuck with the party. Would they have gone elsewhere, perhaps to the Lib Dems? Maybe but I don't think in too great a number. Because the depth of feeling towards Corybn from within the Tory ranks is more than reciprocated in Labour towards the Tories. Despite losing out on Brexit I think the Labour remain vote have stuck with them in order to at least try to get shot of the Tories. Perhaps there was real fears the Lib Dems would have taken a fair chunk of the Labour vote if they had agreed to see Brexit through but looking to how it panned out and how poor the Lid Dems were, I guess not. More so because even many remain voters weren't keen on the Lib Dems plans to simply revoking article 50. Hindsight being a wonderful thing of course.
But even with that said, I don't think Labour could have won this election anyhow. It was a complete disaster backing a second referendum, I still think they would have struggled to gain power (for other reasons discussed) if they had said they would respect the result of the 2016 referendum. And considering who they were up against and how long they had been in government, that in itself is a disaster of sorts.
Labour really at a crossroads here big time.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Dec 19, 2019 8:54:10 GMT 1
If anyone thinks the new Labour leader is going to be anything but loony left they are undoubtedly mistaken. Labour has shifted and are now run and controlled by momentum. Whoever Jon Lansman backs will be the new leader. Labour mps will moan but they'll have no way of stopping it. this is my concern
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 19, 2019 9:21:03 GMT 1
If anyone thinks the new Labour leader is going to be anything but loony left they are undoubtedly mistaken. Labour has shifted and are now run and controlled by momentum. Whoever Jon Lansman backs will be the new leader. Labour mps will moan but they'll have no way of stopping it. Yep, could well end up to be more of the same. As it is the membership who get to decide, right? Problem for those who want to see a different direction taken is that most people just aren't that much into politics; they don't have the time, energy or inclination. We've already had accusations towards Labour for a good while now that it is more of a middle class protest movement than a political party, if the makeup of Labour membership stays as is and it continues as is then the detachment between the party and the people may set to continue for a good while yet.
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Dec 19, 2019 9:58:15 GMT 1
I think that the lack of interest from the majority of the population means that those actually engaged in politics are increasingly those with the more extreme views. Combine that with the soundbite culture where facts and detail come second to a big personality with a catchphrase every time and the future looks pretty frightening.
If labour go with Long-Bailey then they are sunk; if they go with Cooper then they have a real chance. Sad thing is the more competent types like Cooper are becoming few and far between and don't appeal to the extremists who make up the political party memberships.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 19, 2019 13:28:19 GMT 1
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 19, 2019 13:28:19 GMT 1
What’s the male equivalent of an overblown feminist? Matron?
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Dec 19, 2019 16:04:15 GMT 1
So, I am reading in the Independent that Britain First are encouraging their members to join the Tory Party to help strengthen Johnson's position. This is after Johnson was endorsed by Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. I have absolutely no idea why people like this would be attracted to a bloke who is supposed to be moving to the centre. Boris Johnson does not need his position strengthing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 19, 2019 18:28:05 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 18:28:05 GMT 1
So, I am reading in the Independent that Britain First are encouraging their members to join the Tory Party to help strengthen Johnson's position. This is after Johnson was endorsed by Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. I have absolutely no idea why people like this would be attracted to a bloke who is supposed to be moving to the centre. Boris Johnson does not need his position strengthing. He most certainly does because he showed during the election campaign that he frequently lacked backbone but he proved that cowards will run away and live to fight another day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 19, 2019 18:48:33 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 18:48:33 GMT 1
So, I am reading in the Independent that Britain First are encouraging their members to join the Tory Party to help strengthen Johnson's position. This is after Johnson was endorsed by Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. I have absolutely no idea why people like this would be attracted to a bloke who is supposed to be moving to the centre. Boris Johnson does not need his position strengthing. Oh, good, then he can go on record as saying he doesn't want a bunch Islamophobic enteritist in the party....
|
|
|
Post by pitchcare on Dec 20, 2019 13:01:56 GMT 1
Well said Owen Paterson.....
"Those people (leave voters) had been abused, they had be traduced, bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum, then after the referendum and since then. They were told they were thick. There were told they were racist. We in the ERG were told we were fascists, we were Nazi’s, and we’re extremists.
"And what did we want? All we wanted was to honour the referendum."
He turned his frustration on the Labour benches. "For those members, it’s staggering to hear them this morning still quibbling, still cavilling about this.
"Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave and this bill means they will leave.”
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 13:18:16 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by martinshrew on Dec 20, 2019 13:18:16 GMT 1
Well said Owen Paterson..... "Those people (leave voters) had been abused, they had be traduced, bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum, then after the referendum and since then. They were told they were thick. There were told they were racist. We in the ERG were told we were fascists, we were Nazi’s, and we’re extremists. "And what did we want? All we wanted was to honour the referendum." He turned his frustration on the Labour benches. "For those members, it’s staggering to hear them this morning still quibbling, still cavilling about this. "Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave and this bill means they will leave.” You're quite right, Labour are still missing the point. Anyone who changed to Tory in Labour heartlands must be happy with their decision looking at MPQ's this week. Labour are finished if they don't elect the right leader, but the Unions run the party now and will effectively decide the next leader themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 13:27:20 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 13:27:20 GMT 1
Well said Owen Paterson..... "Those people (leave voters) had been abused, they had be traduced, bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum, then after the referendum and since then. They were told they were thick. There were told they were racist. We in the ERG were told we were fascists, we were Nazi’s, and we’re extremists. "And what did we want? All we wanted was to honour the referendum." He turned his frustration on the Labour benches. "For those members, it’s staggering to hear them this morning still quibbling, still cavilling about this. "Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave and this bill means they will leave.” Thank you Mr Paterson for speaking up for the majority.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 20, 2019 15:01:28 GMT 1
Well said Owen Paterson..... "Those people (leave voters) had been abused, they had be traduced, bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum, then after the referendum and since then. They were told they were thick. There were told they were racist. We in the ERG were told we were fascists, we were Nazi’s, and we’re extremists. "And what did we want? All we wanted was to honour the referendum." He turned his frustration on the Labour benches. "For those members, it’s staggering to hear them this morning still quibbling, still cavilling about this. "Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave and this bill means they will leave.” Thank you Mr Paterson for speaking up for the majority. Interesting definition of majority!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:04:37 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 15:04:37 GMT 1
Thank you Mr Paterson for speaking up for the majority. Interesting definition of majority! The 52% who voted for Brexit! A majority.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:21:20 GMT 1
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 20, 2019 15:21:20 GMT 1
Interesting definition of majority! The 52% who voted for Brexit! A majority. Not really a convincing majority though, when major irrevocable decisions like this are made it is often, and the idiot Cameron should have thought about, a requirement to have a 70% - 80% in favour to carry the decision, rather than just a simple, tiny, majority.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:21:50 GMT 1
Post by sheltonsalopian on Dec 20, 2019 15:21:50 GMT 1
Well said Owen Paterson..... "Those people (leave voters) had been abused, they had be traduced, bombarded with propaganda leading up to the referendum, then after the referendum and since then. They were told they were thick. There were told they were racist. We in the ERG were told we were fascists, we were Nazi’s, and we’re extremists. "And what did we want? All we wanted was to honour the referendum." He turned his frustration on the Labour benches. "For those members, it’s staggering to hear them this morning still quibbling, still cavilling about this. "Four times the people have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak to get it? They voted to leave and this bill means they will leave.” Sorry but this is absolute rubbish; if the ERG had voted with the government originally on T May's withdrawal agreement we would have left long ago, agree the only way to go forward is to leave but can they stop with the dishonesty and self righteousness?
|
|
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:29:19 GMT 1
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 20, 2019 15:29:19 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:36:37 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 15:36:37 GMT 1
The 52% who voted for Brexit! A majority. Not really a convincing majority though, when major irrevocable decisions like this are made it is often, and the idiot Cameron should have thought about, a requirement to have a 70% - 80% in favour to carry the decision, rather than just a simple, tiny, majority. Continued sour grapes 😂😂😂 When is a majority not a majority 😂😂😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Dec 20, 2019 15:46:26 GMT 1
via mobile
Drew likes this
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 15:46:26 GMT 1
The withdrawal bill has flown through the Commons 😊
|
|