Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016045)

Let me ask you this question: you say that size of the majority was irrelevant, if the majority was a single person which was possible & allowable under the rules in place, is this then the "will of the people"?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016043)

I know what a deficit is, jfman. The point I'm making is that the difference between income and expenditure was in seriously negative figures and that money had to be made up.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36016052)

Democracy is the worst system, apart from all the others. Etc etc etc.

Yes, in a vote that is held with a binary question requiring a simple majority outcome, a win by 1 vote is the “will of the people” because that was the means by which the people agreed their will should be determined.

It really is quite a straightforward concept.

To keep this relevant to the election debate (ie not the Brexit referendum), we even had a referendum on alternative votes in parliamentary constituencies. It failed.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016068)

I thought most profits were 'siphoned offshore' anyway, considering the amount of things that are foreign owned :p:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016068)

I thought most profits were 'siphoned offshore' anyway, considering the amount of things that are foreign owned :p:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016068)

I thought most profits were 'siphoned offshore' anyway, considering the amount of things that are foreign owned :p:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016070)

And you agree with this?

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016074)

Not really, same as I don't agree with foreign workers here earning £400 a week and sending half of it back home, it isn't helping the UK economy.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36016075)

What they do with their money is up to them,

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016076)

Well . . in that case, a billionaire sending his money to the Caymens must be ok then ;) :D

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36016075)

If they are working in a public service e.g. the NHS, it certainly is helping us. What they do with their money is up to them, they might have left dependents behind.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016080)

Indeed when people spend thousands on Chinese electronics is that any different?

I save roughly half my wages each month and don't plan to spend any of it on UK manufactured goods or services. Does that make me a bad person?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016077)

I think you have answered your own question and also highlighted the hypocrisy of the right. Yes, if you are wealthy it is fine to avoid paying your fair share of taxes and hide it in offshore tax havens but if you are earning a modest wage, woe betide you if you choose what to do with your money.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016070)

Thank you for proving my point. The whole basis of the 2016 vote was an immoral one: the socio-economic fate of an entire country possibly decided by 1 person.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36016085)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...past-2020.html

So, even if we leave with a deal, it’ll probably end up as a no-deal Brexit.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36016085)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...past-2020.html

So, even if we leave with a deal, it’ll probably end up as a no-deal Brexit.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016064)

You evidently do not know or else you'd have got the terminology right. Despite all the cuts to date, and masses of privatisation over the recent decades, it'll still a deficit.

Essentially, you want to eliminate the role of the state to privatise as much as possible so profits can be siphoned offshore. At least be honest about your Ideology and not pretend it is anyone's interest.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36016088)

So the penny has eventually dropped. As nomadking, myself and other leave supporters have been trying to tell you. The WA is not a deal, never has been, never will be.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016097)

I see your pedantry has not gone away, jfman. Of course I understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt. 'Paid off' may not be the appropriate turn of phrase, but I'm sure that most people on here knew what I meant.

The deficit has now come down to manageable levels, which means we can start to actually reduce the debt rather than continue to increase it.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to eliminate the role of the state. I have never said that. I believe in a mixed economy. However, the role of the state should be kept under control and should not be allowed to proliferate. There are things the state does well and there are things the privatised sector does better. We should use whichever method is more efficient.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36016087)

You’re out of step with much of the world, where simple majority is the rule in the vast majority of cases. Where that is qualified, it is usually done so via a quorum or in federal systems by requiring a yes vote in a majority of states also.

https://researchbriefings.files.parl...09/SN02809.pdf



Yet the Lib Dems declared it a baby step in the right direction and campaigned for Yes.

I am sceptical that most of the British electorate saw the question in so technical terms as the reform campaigner cited at Wikiwand and am content that as an exercise in determining appetite for change, the referendum adequately showed that the British electorate are sufficiently happy with the present system to leave it as is.

In the 2017 election, despite the plurality of parties available, well over 80% of all votes went to either Labour or Conservative.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36016086)

I think he was highlighting Hypocrisy full stop.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016101)

I’m not being pedantic for the sake of it, however if people don’t understand macroeconomic concepts it’s a reasonable stance to take that they don’t understand macroeconomics.

It’s much easier, and obviously accurate, to use the phrase “reduced the deficit” than introduce “paying off” as inaccurate terminology.

We aren’t reducing debt either. The national debt is the highest it has ever been.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016103)

Not so. The use of the Supermajority is common across the world for important, high impact decisions - see https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermaj...ound_the_world

The major lesson learnt here is that the approach the UK took to this referendum was deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016105)

Yes, yes, you've made a point about terminology, but you have assumed too much and you have taken this much too far. You need to calm yourself.

The Conservatives have in fact indicated that they are now in a position to bring down the national debt, which is what I was referring to. I've already explained why the national debt is so high.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016101)

I’m not being pedantic for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36016107)

That statement is so vague as to be almost meaningless...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36016109)

Granted, that's usually Hugh's job but you're very good at it too.

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------



if that came out of a politicians mouth, it would be taken almost refreshingly Lucid, compared to some of the drivel the Long-Baily, Nandy and their ilk come out with.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016105)

Yes, yes, you've made a point about terminology, but you have assumed too much and you have taken this much too far. You need to calm yourself.

The Conservatives have in fact indicated that they are now in a position to bring down the national debt, which is what I was referring to. I've already explained why the national debt is so high.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016112)

I'm perfectly calm. You are persistently using meaningless phrases and jargon (often incorrectly) implying that the Conservative Party are fiscally responsible and the Labour Party are not. This is in the complete absence of evidence.

We are running a budget deficit almost a decade after the coalition came to power. A defecit and the national debt at the highest it has ever been. It's an absolute parody of economic theory in action.

Austerity was simply an excuse to roll back the state. We are the fifth largest economy in the world yet we "can't afford" to do anything that private sector companies can extract profits from in the absence of genuine competition in the market. In the worst cases (TOCs) we privatise profits and subsidise the losses anyway.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016097)

I see your pedantry has not gone away, jfman. Of course I understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt. 'Paid off' may not be the appropriate turn of phrase, but I'm sure that most people on here knew what I meant.

The deficit has now come down to manageable levels, which means we can start to actually reduce the debt rather than continue to increase it.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to eliminate the role of the state. I have never said that. I believe in a mixed economy. However, the role of the state should be kept under control and should not be allowed to proliferate. There are things the state does well and there are things the privatised sector does better. We should use whichever method is more efficient.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36016115)

So if you only spend a bit more than you earn year after year that's ok. Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016116)

Continuing to run a huge deficit, when the spending isn't needed or justified, just stores up problems for when you do need it, ie downturn in economy.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36016117)

So you too agree it's OK to keep spending more than you've got coming in.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016105)

The Conservatives have in fact indicated that they are now in a position to bring down the national debt, which is what I was referring to. I've already explained why the national debt is so high.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36016131)

National debt is rising and the Conservatives are making spending commitments to try and win the election. Add in all the wasted money on Brexit including the melted down 50p coins and you start to understand that they're no longer the steady pair of hands they once were.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36016132)

Don't worry l am sure that mythical magic money tree they often point at other political parties will come out conveniently during this election for their own electoral convenience.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016112)

I'm perfectly calm. You are persistently using meaningless phrases and jargon (often incorrectly) implying that the Conservative Party are fiscally responsible and the Labour Party are not. This is in the complete absence of evidence.

We are running a budget deficit almost a decade after the coalition came to power. A defecit and the national debt at the highest it has ever been. It's an absolute parody of economic theory in action.

Austerity was simply an excuse to roll back the state. We are the fifth largest economy in the world yet we "can't afford" to do anything that private sector companies can extract profits from in the absence of genuine competition in the market. In the worst cases (TOCs) we privatise profits and subsidise the losses anyway.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016135)

What complete and utter nonsence, jfman. You really do enjoy trying to prove that black is white, don't you?

Here's a nice, easy to read report which shows your comments for the mistruths they are.

https://www.ft.com/content/928f7a7c-...d-04f350474d62

The UK government’s borrowing hit a 17-year low during the past financial year, according to preliminary figures published by the Office for National Statistics on Wednesday. The government spent £24.7bn more than it received between April 2018 and March 2019, down from £41.8bn during the 2017-18 financial year. It was the lowest annual borrowing since 2001-02. The government has been trying to reduce the public sector shortfall since it reached close to a tenth of national income in 2010.

Tax revenues from high-earning City workers collapsed after the 2008 financial crisis while spending on stimulus measures and benefits increased. Borrowing has recently fallen faster than predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s fiscal watchdog, thanks to rapid growth in tax receipts. Despite sluggish overall growth, stable employment and an increase in wages has helped support both income tax revenues and value added tax receipts, said John Hawksworth, chief economist at advisory firm PwC. “Economic growth has therefore been relatively ‘tax-rich’ over the past year, which has played a key role in bringing the budget deficit down to more sustainable levels,” he said.

Income and value added tax receipts rose 5.8 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively during the financial year compared with the previous 12 months, while revenue from capital gains tax was 18.6 per cent higher. However, an increase in borrowing during the month of March itself compared with the previous year meant that full-year borrowing was above the £22.8bn predicted by the OBR at the Spring Statement last month.

In their monthly commentary on the figures, the OBR said: “The figures typically take some months to settle down and revisions can be significant.” Borrowing has often been lowered by £3bn in subsequent estimates. Recommended Tax evasion and avoidance UK steps up probe of tax ‘underpayment' by US groups “The year-over-year increase in public borrowing is not a sign that the economy has shifted down a gear,” said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, a consultancy. “The jump in borrowing compared to the previous March entirely reflected a £1.8bn increase in central government net investment, which is volatile and will boost the economy.”

The ONS said there were “notable” increases in government spending on goods and services during March as well as higher capital spending on infrastructure. Government debt fell for the second consecutive year as a percentage of national income during the past financial year, from 84.6 per cent of gross domestic product to 83.1 per cent. “The historically high deficits since 2008 mean that government debt is almost 50 per cent of national income higher than it was before the financial crisis, and will remain significantly above those levels for the foreseeable future,” said Thomas Pope, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Doesn't sound like mismanagement of the economy to me.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016147)

Interesting developments in NI:

SDLP will not contest general election in three seats

Sinn Féin won't stand in three Westminster seats

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------



You have a very simplistic view of economic history and who is responsible for what. Here is a very interesting article disproving the myth that Labour is responsible for austerity:

Can Labour be blamed for the economic crisis?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016135)

What complete and utter nonsence, jfman. You really do enjoy trying to prove that black is white, don't you?

Here's a nice, easy to read report which shows your comments for the mistruths they are.

https://www.ft.com/content/928f7a7c-...d-04f350474d62

The UK government’s borrowing hit a 17-year low during the past financial year, according to preliminary figures published by the Office for National Statistics on Wednesday. The government spent £24.7bn more than it received between April 2018 and March 2019, down from £41.8bn during the 2017-18 financial year. It was the lowest annual borrowing since 2001-02. The government has been trying to reduce the public sector shortfall since it reached close to a tenth of national income in 2010.

Tax revenues from high-earning City workers collapsed after the 2008 financial crisis while spending on stimulus measures and benefits increased. Borrowing has recently fallen faster than predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s fiscal watchdog, thanks to rapid growth in tax receipts. Despite sluggish overall growth, stable employment and an increase in wages has helped support both income tax revenues and value added tax receipts, said John Hawksworth, chief economist at advisory firm PwC. “Economic growth has therefore been relatively ‘tax-rich’ over the past year, which has played a key role in bringing the budget deficit down to more sustainable levels,” he said.

Income and value added tax receipts rose 5.8 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively during the financial year compared with the previous 12 months, while revenue from capital gains tax was 18.6 per cent higher. However, an increase in borrowing during the month of March itself compared with the previous year meant that full-year borrowing was above the £22.8bn predicted by the OBR at the Spring Statement last month.

In their monthly commentary on the figures, the OBR said: “The figures typically take some months to settle down and revisions can be significant.” Borrowing has often been lowered by £3bn in subsequent estimates. Recommended Tax evasion and avoidance UK steps up probe of tax ‘underpayment' by US groups “The year-over-year increase in public borrowing is not a sign that the economy has shifted down a gear,” said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, a consultancy. “The jump in borrowing compared to the previous March entirely reflected a £1.8bn increase in central government net investment, which is volatile and will boost the economy.”

The ONS said there were “notable” increases in government spending on goods and services during March as well as higher capital spending on infrastructure. Government debt fell for the second consecutive year as a percentage of national income during the past financial year, from 84.6 per cent of gross domestic product to 83.1 per cent. “The historically high deficits since 2008 mean that government debt is almost 50 per cent of national income higher than it was before the financial crisis, and will remain significantly above those levels for the foreseeable future,” said Thomas Pope, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Doesn't sound like mismanagement of the economy to me.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016179)

You are confusing borrowing - total debt, with net borrowing in a fiscal period also known as a defecit.

I'm trying to prove black is black and white is white to a blind man, it would appear.

The UK national debt has never been higher in straightforward Great British Pounds.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016190)

I am not confusing anything, but you look plenty confused to me.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016197)

National debt has never been higher.

We are running a defecit.

Two statements of absolute fact.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016147)

You have a very simplistic view of economic history and who is responsible for what. Here is a very interesting article disproving the myth that Labour is responsible for austerity:

Can Labour be blamed for the economic crisis?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016201)

I can see you are even more confused than I thought. I don't think anyone disagrees with your statement. Are you arguing with yourself?

I would add to those 'absolute statements of fact' that the deficit has been reduced significantly and it was covering that deficit that has led to the increase in the national debt.

I would further add that Labour did not cause the world-wide financial crisis. Of course they didn't. But they are responsible for the failure to prudently keep money aside for emergencies. Had they done so (and not spent all the proceeds from the sale of our gold reserves), there would have been no need for the austerity that the Conservatives had to impose to avoid sinking with the likes of Greece.

These, too, are factual statements that give your factual statements a bit of context.

I am sure that there will be arguments galore about this during the election campaign, and around in circles we shall go.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016201)

I can see you are even more confused than I thought. I don't think anyone disagrees with your statement. Are you arguing with yourself?

I would add to those 'absolute statements of fact' that the deficit has been reduced significantly and it was covering that deficit that has led to the increase in the national debt.

I would further add that Labour did not cause the world-wide financial crisis. Of course they didn't. But they are responsible for the failure to prudently keep money aside for emergencies. Had they done so (and not spent all the proceeds from the sale of our gold reserves), there would have been no need for the austerity that the Conservatives had to impose to avoid sinking with the likes of Greece.

These, too, are factual statements that give your factual statements a bit of context.

I am sure that there will be arguments galore about this during the election campaign, and around in circles we shall go.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------



:D

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? But wait a minute, did you actually miss the most significant admission of Labour's ineptitude in this piece? Even the author had to admit:

One argument is that if the UK had run a balanced budget in the 2000s, public sector debt would have been lower and the UK would have had more room for manoeuvre in pursuing expansionary fiscal policy when the recession hit and we needed expansionary fiscal policy.

There is some credence to this, with a balanced budget and lower public sector debt to start with, governments may have felt greater confidence to borrow even more in the recession – when the UK economy needed expansionary fiscal policy.

Thank you for the confirmation of what I have been saying all this time.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36016223)

You appear to have accidentally missed out the following paragraphs, which clarified his position...

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36016158)

General Election Nowcast (05/11):

CON: 368 (-10), 37.8% (+1.2)
LAB: 184 (+12), 26.9% (+2.4)
SNP: 50 (=), 3.2% (=)
LDM: 25 (-3), 15.9% (-2.0)

CON Working Majority of 91 (-20).

See the graphics for the full results.
Changes w/ 29/10.

Support me on http://ko-fi.com/electionmapsuk

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36016227)

More news on that slur story against Jo Swinson.

How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson went viral

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36016227)

More news on that slur story against Jo Swinson.

How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson went viral

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016229)

There are two 'stories', one is probably true, one is probably false, but how does anyone know which is which?

Not that it really matters, floating pro EU voters will probably vote for them anyway, and anti EU will give them a miss.

The only people that it may influence are those who don't have a clue what to do, and believe everything they want to believe :D

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36016257)

Alun Cairns resigns as Welsh secretary over claim did not tell truth about discredited aide.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ment-135188174

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016264)

Good start to the campaign. Resignations, scandal and gaffes. And it’s only the first day.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36016268)

Perhaps they need a few tips from Theresa May and her team.;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36016274)

Owen Jones leads ‘hundreds’ of campaigners to unseat Tory MP


LABOUR activist Owen Jones and left-wing group Momentum have been left red-faced after planning a campaigning event in Putney tonight to unseat Tory MP Justine Greening despite her already announcing she is standing down.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...stine-greening

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016279)

Confusion over Brexit isn’t going to work for the whole campaign. Sooner or later eventually the (pretty clear) message is going to hit home.

Labour deal or remain - and the Labour Party will remain neutral. It’s not rocket science.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016276)

The Left has lost its way. The confusion over Brexit is just the tip of the iceberg.

As for Owen Jones, where do I start?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016279)

Confusion over Brexit isn’t going to work for the whole campaign. Sooner or later eventually the (pretty clear) message is going to hit home.

Labour deal or remain - and the Labour Party will remain neutral. It’s not rocket science.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016296)

Labour are quite happy for the EU to impose certain Labour/Liberal supported types of policies, but are not so happy with certain others eg restraints on State aid.

Basically they want Labour policies regardless of how the UK votes, now or in the future. So much for democracy.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36016243)

Venezuela here we come.

Keir Starmer in a car crash interview that made Diane Abbot's look like a minor fender bender:



Video and comment on red link above.

Susanna Reid?!? Hardly a John Humphreys.:D

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 36016307)

Another Tory bites the dust...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...g-allegations/

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 36016307)

Another Tory bites the dust...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...g-allegations/

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36016310)

Paywalled link.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36016312)

Here we go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50325666

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36016317)

What about that Green Party eh, pledging £100bn a year to be spent on tackling the climate "emergency", and borrowing £91.2bn a year to make it happen.

I wouldn't mind having a brand new 2019 Jaguar I-PACE, just to help save the planet you know, but I very much doubt I can borrow £60k for one . .

oh well, 05 reg Avensis it is then ;)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36016321)

What limit would you put on saving the planet? It should be the No1 issue for all parties, unfortunately they only look 5 years ahead, and the electorate look no further than tomorrow. Extinction is well deserved really.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36016321)

What limit would you put on saving the planet? It should be the No1 issue for all parties, unfortunately they only look 5 years ahead, and the electorate look no further than tomorrow. Extinction is well deserved really.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016293)

I haven’t seen anything where the Labour Party official position would be to campaign against it’s own deal.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016293)

I haven’t seen anything where the Labour Party official position would be to campaign against it’s own deal. Only that the party would remain neutral, but individuals could campaign as they wished.

The raison d'etre of Brexit is to get rid EU nationals in the workforce. Anything else is speculative.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36016337)

Ian Austin sticking the boot into Jeremy Corbyn this morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nomy-live-news

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016338)

It is reassuring there there are still Labour MPs who have common sense. There are many of them who are despairing of Jeremy Corbyn and what he is doing to the Labour Party.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016338)

I think many remainers do not understand the reasons why leavers voted as they did, and they are trying to portray them as racists, ignorami, wishing to go back to the days of Empire, etc.

The reasons vary, but personally, I voted Brexit because:

1. EU rules are stifling business and the laws they make are unduly complex and difficult to understand. Employers are having to make much more use of lawyers to ensure they stay on the right side of the law, but even they will tell you that the ECJ could decide to go against you, even if you have complied with the provisions set out. Far better that we set our own laws which are actually understandable and relevant to how we wish to operate.

2. Belonging to the customs union means that we cannot make our own trade deals. Existing EU trade deals are useful, but we could construct our own which better match our own requirements. The scope for improvement to take into account our interests is considerable, and would bring more trade to GB. Clearly, our trade with the EU would continue much as it does now.

3. We should be attracting into this country people who have the skills and the abilities we need and not allow in just anybody who wants to take advantage of us or seek a better life to the detriment of our own citizens. We are but a small country and it is self evident that there must be a limit on the number of people coming in (unless, of course, this is balanced by those leaving the country).

4. The EU is structurally unsustainable. The Euro is a major problem because there are no central fiscal rules to which EU countries must abide. Greece is a good example of how its reckless policies undermined the EU economy. Sooner or later, the whole EU operation is likely to implode and we do not want to be a part of that when it happens.

5. The EU is undemocratic although there is a facade in place to make it look as though it is a democratic organisation. MEPs may gain knowledge of what their voters want but are powerless to deliver it unless the bureaucrats bring such legislation forward. Imagine the UK operating in that way. Would you really want Civil Servants setting the agenda rather than our elected MPs?

Those were my principal reasons. Others will have theirs. But to say it was just to get EU nationals out of the workforce is simplifying the rationale of leavers to a very extreme degree. It is true that in some of the poorer areas, EU nationals are seen to be coming in and being prepared to work for lower wages, thereby depriving UK nationals of employment opportunities. This is a valid concern, but it is far from the only reason that leavers have taken the position they have.

---------- Post added at 08:46 ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 ----------



It is reassuring there there are still Labour MPs who have common sense. There are many of them who are despairing of Jeremy Corbyn and what he is doing to the Labour Party.

The sooner he is gone, the better, but he needs to be replaced by someone who can actually relate to the majority of the electorate.

I think people will be a little surprised at how many voters he has lost for the Labour Party when the result of the election is known. Some of them will move to the Lib Dems, Brexit Party and the Conservatives, but many will stay at home. This diminished Labour support will let the Conservatives in with a commanding majority and at last we will be proud again of our House of Commons.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016350)

This isn't the Brexit thread, from which I'm currently banned, so I'm not going to address your points, which I suspect you've had three years to formulate after the fact.

The UK can hardly be democratic with majority Governments that 65% of people voted for someone else.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016350)

This isn't the Brexit thread, from which I'm currently banned, so I'm not going to address your points, which I suspect you've had three years to formulate after the fact.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016352)

But that 65% is still less than for every other party, so how would that work?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 36016355)

It may be beyond your comprehension but some people who voted to leave (maybe even most or, heaven forbid, all) had considered all those factors in arriving at their decision. We didn't all just follow the herd and vote mindlesely for leaving as you appear to think we did.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016357)

Proportional representation. As in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Germany, etc.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------
I doubt 33 million people sought to educate themselves on all of those matters.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016201)

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? But wait a minute, did you actually miss the most significant admission of Labour's ineptitude in this piece? Even the author had to admit:

One argument is that if the UK had run a balanced budget in the 2000s, public sector debt would have been lower and the UK would have had more room for manoeuvre in pursuing expansionary fiscal policy when the recession hit and we needed expansionary fiscal policy.

There is some credence to this, with a balanced budget and lower public sector debt to start with, governments may have felt greater confidence to borrow even more in the recession – when the UK economy needed expansionary fiscal policy.

Thank you for the confirmation of what I have been saying all this time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016357)

Proportional representation. As in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Germany, etc.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------



I doubt 33 million people sought to educate themselves on all of those matters.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016338)

I think many remainers do not understand the reasons why leavers voted as they did, and they are trying to portray them as racists, ignorami, wishing to go back to the days of Empire, etc.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016365)

In fact, and this is a real shock I suspect, some voted for no reason at all. They didn't give a damn because no-one gave a damn about them.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016360)

So we get a government nobody voted for and can't get rid of. Also it would more than likely end up being an never ending Labour dictatorship.

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 36016362)

... and I doubt that all the Remain voters "educated" themselves either - if they had have done they may well have voted differently.