Honest campaign promises

I need to go lie down, that one's making me laugh a lot.

BleedingClaret wrote:Parliament is, IMO, out of line with the people it was elected to serve.

A General Election would solve that one way or the other

If the current crop got back in, with honest campaign promises, then they are free to do as they believe.

No guarantee that an election solves the brexit issue.

Only one way to solve it.

Another referendum

dsr wrote:Strong, not perfect.

Not even close to being strong. UKIP polled just 12% of the votes in the general election after they'd got 27% in the EU elections, the two main parties considerably more.

martin_p wrote:Not sure the numbers back up that theory, especially in the last ten years. People are much more likely to use local and euro elections as an opportunity to protest as they consider them less important. If there’d been a strong correlation between the last euro elections and the following/previous general election Nigel Farage would be PM now.

Mainline Party, Remain Voting, Candidates stood on a promise to honour the Referendum to help avert that.
Plus UKIP is not the Brexit Party, although Farage's previous association to it could adversely affect the New Party.
Conversely it could be true also that UKIP still being in existence is a filter to stop the more extreme right wing types infiltrating the Brexit Party.

Lancasterclaret wrote:No guarantee that an election solves the brexit issue.

Only one way to solve it.

Another referendum

Apparently Parliament doesn't have to honour it.

General Election is the only way.

BleedingClaret wrote:Mainline Party, Remain Voting, Candidates stood on a promise to honour the Referendum to help avert that.
Plus UKIP is not the Brexit Party, although Farage's previous association to it could adversely affect the New Party.
Conversely it could be true also that UKIP still being in existence is a filter to stop the more extreme right wing types infiltrating the Brexit Party.

There's been two general elections since UKIP got 27% of the vote at the last EU elections, the first was before the referendum.

Anyway, good news Brexiteers! The Home Office reckon that there will be technology that can solve the Irish border issue and it can be ready as soon as 2030 (and will be hideously expensive).

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Honest campaign promises

I need to go lie down, that one's making me laugh a lot.

Basically trying to say that particular MP's may not get away with campaign dishonesty as easily this time as they have outed themselves.

martin_p wrote:Not even close to being strong. UKIP polled just 12% of the votes in the general election after they'd got 27% in the EU elections, the two main parties considerably more.

Brexit skews it. But of people that voted Conservative in the last general election, voting plans for the Euros are 34% Conservative, 1% Labour, 2% Liberal. Of people who voted Labour in the general election, voting plans are 51% Labour, 10% Liberal, 1% Conservative. Of people who voted Liberal, plans are 50% Liberal, 4% Conservative, 2% Labour. That's a strong correlation, and it suggests that people do have other issues that determine their vote as well as purely the EU.

Devils_Advocate wrote:Does your nose grow when you tell the truth?

That could only be a hypothetical question. I doubt we’ll ever find out the answer.

dsr wrote:Brexit skews it. But of people that voted Conservative in the last general election, voting plans for the Euros are 34% Conservative, 1% Labour, 2% Liberal. Of people who voted Labour in the general election, voting plans are 51% Labour, 10% Liberal, 1% Conservative. Of people who voted Liberal, plans are 50% Liberal, 4% Conservative, 2% Labour. That's a strong correlation.

No it isn't, especially for the Tories where two thirds of those that voted for them in the last GE are intending not to in the EU elections. Even for the other two parties voters from the last GE are as likley to not vote for them as the are.

Lancasterclaret wrote:No guarantee that an election solves the brexit issue.

Only one way to solve it.

Another referendum

You'll only want another one if remain lost again so what's the point?

BleedingClaret wrote:Basically trying to say that particular MP's may not get away with campaign dishonesty as easily this time as they have outed themselves.

Oh they will, lots of voters are blindly loyal

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status ... 8999100417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A decade away before we have the technology to have frictionless cross border trade.

Course, this was actually mentioned by people but it was dismissed as "Project Fear"

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You'll only want another one if remain lost again so what's the point?

You don't care apparently.

When I don't care about stuff, I don't post about it.

BleedingClaret wrote:Apparently Parliament doesn't have to honour it.

General Election is the only way.

Make sure it has to be honoured before you announce it.

Not hard really

Lancasterclaret wrote:Make sure it has to be honoured before you announce it.

Not hard really

They are not binding it's obvious.

BleedingClaret wrote:They are not binding it's obvious.

Then you pass a law to make the next one binding.

A GE will result in a very similar make up in the H of C.

A binding referendum settles this.

Whatever we do its going to be ****, so lets do it the one way that means its settled for a generation at least eh?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Oh they will, lots of voters are blindly loyal

I know that you are right by past evidence, but I just wonder now, the Tories are scared to door knock such is the anger they meet.

martin_p wrote:Well yes, but I thought the great ‘usurping of democracy’ was going to create a massive backlash and a huge surge of support for Nige. Those polling figures suggest the support hasn’t changed since 2014.

They've only been going 2 weeks, less than TIGS, just wait until the campaign proper starts.

AndyClaret wrote:They've only been going 2 weeks, less than TIGS, just wait until the campaign proper starts.

It’s started...

Damo wrote:No. Read my post again.
I said it's not ok to insinuate leave voters are Nazi supporters because some people who voted leave might be.
Not because it's unfair on leave voters, but because it makes Nazi supporters seem mainstream.
A bit like when you call people racist.
It's not because they are racist, it's because they dont have a reddit account

What is it about the actual, individual comparison you don't like? I don't give a **** if you think that no one should be compared to Nazis, because that's a dumb-as-**** attitude to have and means that people can become literal nazis but get protected from Nazi comparisons because Damo thinks it's bad to compare people to Nazis.

Show me what it is about the actual comparison you disapprove of and then i'll be interested in what you have to say. Otherwise you're just whining about two people not being your version of politically correct.

RingoMcCartney wrote:You are susceptible to calling anybody that isn't fortunate enough to share your opinion, a nazi, a xenophobe, racist or a whole plethora of go to stereotypical labels.

Are you the Member of Parliament for Tottenham?

You're wrong. No, in fact, you're lying. This is typical of people like you who want to defends the people accused of being racist or white supremacists, but without actually arguing the merits of the accusations. You make up this lie and spread it at every opportunity.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What is it about the actual, individual comparison you don't like? I don't give a **** if you think that no one should be compared to Nazis, because that's a dumb-as-**** attitude to have and means that people can become literal nazis but get protected from Nazi comparisons because Damo thinks it's bad to compare people to Nazis.

Show me what it is about the actual comparison you disapprove of and then i'll be interested in what you have to say. Otherwise you're just whining about two people not being your version of politically correct.

I didnt say "no one should be compared to Nazis"
Comparing people to Nazis because they voted leave though just makes you look like a hysterical little trigger turtle.

Damo wrote:I didnt say "no one should be compared to Nazis"
Comparing people to Nazis because they voted leave though just makes you look like a hysterical little trigger turtle.

Please show me where people were compared to Nazis BECAUSE they voted Leave.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Please show me where people were compared to Nazis BECAUSE they voted Leave.

One of your crew turtle David Lammy ..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pare-nazis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SmudgetheClaret wrote:One of your crew turtle David Lammy ..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pare-nazis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm struggling to find anything in the article in which Lammy compared all leave voters to Nazis.
His anology to Chamberlain appeasing the NAzis in the 30s to the Conservative Govt appeasing the ERG is perhaps stretching a point (and unfortunate IMO), but that's not the same as describing leave voters as Nazis.

Safe to say that if Brexit party come top in the EU elections, all talk of a People’s Revote will be finished.

The Labour and Tory parties will be so terrified they will suddenly agree a deal. The EU may be too.

That’s why Farage is spot on - the EU elections are now the big thing. I was going to vote Labour, but I think I’ll vote for him now.

Sorry, I meant Nazi supporters. I forgot Charlie was only capable of debating one comment at a time

nil_desperandum wrote:I'm struggling to find anything in the article in which Lammy compared all leave voters to Nazis.
His anology to Chamberlain appeasing the NAzis in the 30s to the Conservative Govt appeasing the ERG is perhaps stretching a point (and unfortunate IMO), but that's not the same as describing leave voters as Nazis.

Or comparing them to Nazis because they voted leave.

It's about time we started calling out these arseholes who provide cover for sc*m by smearing those of us who call them out.

Don't be afraid to call people racists, and anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too.

Damo wrote:Sorry, I meant Nazi supporters. I forgot Charlie was only capable of debating one comment at a time

When someone is as dishonest as you then yes, it's important to demand specificity when arguing against your bullshit.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Safe to say that if Brexit party come top in the EU elections, all talk of a People’s Revote will be finished.

The Labour and Tory parties will be so terrified they will suddenly agree a deal. The EU may be too.
.

How do you reach such a ludicrous conclusion?
Currently running at 27%. Let's really exaggerate this and make it up to 35%/ That still leaves a whopping 65% who don't support them.
Anything below 15 million votes puts them massively below the remain vote in 2016.
It's quite hard to predict the turnout, but it will almost certainly be a lot higher than at the last EU elections. But in any event if as currently stands they only get between a quarter and a third of the vote it will massively strengthen the argument for a revote, since this will have been a "trial run".

Turnout will be higher in EU elections?
Have you considered the very real possibility that people won't have enough enthusiasm to vote in an EU election when we are meant to be leaving soonish?

Imploding Turtle wrote: and anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too.

Certainly an interesting concept. Maybe these offenders should be made to wear a badge on their clothing. Different symbols so they are easy to spot what they are guilty of and to be admonished for?

Darthlaw wrote:Certainly an interesting concept. Maybe these offenders should be made to wear a badge on their clothing. Different symbols so they are easy to spot what they are guilty of and to be admonished for?

You're comparing me saying that we should call people out for what they say with how the Nazis identified Jews?

Utterly ******* pathetic.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Turnout will be higher in EU elections?
Have you considered the very real possibility that people won't have enough enthusiasm to vote in an EU election when we are meant to be leaving soonish?

Do you actually believe that the turnout will be lower this year than it was in 2014?
Just to be clear, it was a pitiful 35% last time, and with the much heightened awareness of the EU in the intervening period it's hard to imagine the percentage not going up. It's also a big opportunity for remainers to register their opposition to the Brexit Party, and if they don't then they can't complain if brexit turns out badly.

I’m comparing you to folk who admonished others for their opinions & beliefs that they didn’t like, you utter buffoon.

And yes pathetic is exactly what I think of your comment.

You have reasonable points from time to time, regardless of how ultra liberal they are. Have the decency to admit you have got this one wrong.

Darthlaw wrote:I’m comparing you to folk who admonished others for their opinions & beliefs that they didn’t like, you utter buffoon.

And yes pathetic is exactly what I think of your comment.

You have reasonable points from time to time, regardless of how ultra liberal they are. Have the decency to admit you have got this one wrong.

Here's what i said: "and anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too."

How the **** is that "wrong"? These pieces of **** are defending racists and Nazis by accusing those of us who identify them as racists and Nazis of identifying everyone we disagree with as racists and Nazis. And i'm saying we should call these people out too. How in the world is that wrong?

Here, let me make it more clear.

Person 1: "We need to make Britain white again"
Person 2: "You're racist"
Person 3: "Everyone you disagree with is a racist"

Darthlaw, explain to me why person 3 shouldn't get called out for defending person 1 who is clearly racist?

Imploding Turtle wrote:
Here, let me make it more clear.
anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too
Person 1: "We need to make Britain white again"
Person 2: "You're racist"
Person 3: "Everyone you disagree with is a racist"

Darthlaw, explain to me why person 3 shouldn't get called out for defending person 1 who is clearly racist?

Person 1 and 2 are irrelevant in your scenario.

You said:

“anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too”

Ergo, anyone should be called out for disagreeing with your accusations.

Key word - anyone.

Typical IT - if you’re not with me, and think as I do, you’re the enemy.

Is it any wonder the hard right grows by the day, when this is the way the left pushes more from the centre away?

Darthlaw wrote:Person 1 and 2 are irrelevant in your scenario.

You said:

“anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too”

Ergo, anyone should be called out for disagreeing with your accusations.

Key word - anyone.

Typical IT - if you’re not with me, and think as I do, you’re the enemy.

Is it any wonder the hard right grows by the day, when this is the way the left pushes more from the centre away?

OK, i'll clarify. Anyone who comes out with bullshit defences of racists and Nazis by falsely accusing you of labelling everyone who disagrees with you a "racist" or "Nazi" should be called out as a sympathiser of racists or Nazis.

How the **** is that wrong? It's a clarified, impossible-to-be-pedantic-about version of what I said earlier.

Typical IT - if you’re not with me, and think as I do, you’re the enemy.

This is literally the attitude of the sympathisers i'm saying needs to be called out. You are providing rhetorical cover for these ****. Why? These people are going around falsely accusing people like me of throwing around "racist" and "Nazi" at everyone who i disagree with, so why on earth shouldn't these people get called out?

“anyone who comes out with lines like "everyone you disagree with is a racist/nazi/etc." then they are sympathisers of racists and we should call them out too”

Ergo, anyone should be called out for disagreeing with your accusations.

Key word - anyone.

No, you obtuse ****. The key word is "everyone". It's ******* false. These arseholes are accusing people of labeling "everyone" who disagrees with them, as if the act of disagreeing with them is what is the cause of being called a racist and/or a Nazi, and not the racist and Nazi attidues they are expressing.

How the **** is this difficult for you to understand? You're not a moron, or at least i never took you to be one, so how the **** are you struggling to understand this? Is it deliberate?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're wrong. No, in fact, you're lying. This is typical of people like you who want to defends the people accused of being racist or white supremacists, but without actually arguing the merits of the accusations. You make up this lie and spread it at every opportunity.

You really are David Lammy aren't you!

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Safe to say that if Brexit party come top in the EU elections, all talk of a People’s Revote will be finished.

The Labour and Tory parties will be so terrified they will suddenly agree a deal. The EU may be too.

That’s why Farage is spot on - the EU elections are now the big thing. I was going to vote Labour, but I think I’ll vote for him now.

A good showing for the Brexit party,over 30% and topping the poll,will hopefully give the 2 major parties the kick up the a##e they need to finally stop playing games and start governing and opposing.

I was in 2 minds between voting Brexit party or UKIP,but on these figures it's an easy choice.

The Lib Dems are polling below the greens can they go any lower.

Hes defo been triggered by something

The Barry Chuckle doth protest too much, methinks.

Tourette's is a beggar. It must be dreadful to be so unable to control yourself.

nil_desperandum wrote:How do you reach such a ludicrous conclusion?
Currently running at 27%. Let's really exaggerate this and make it up to 35%/ That still leaves a whopping 65% who don't support them.
Anything below 15 million votes puts them massively below the remain vote in 2016.
It's quite hard to predict the turnout, but it will almost certainly be a lot higher than at the last EU elections. But in any event if as currently stands they only get between a quarter and a third of the vote it will massively strengthen the argument for a revote, since this will have been a "trial run".

It isn’t my conclusion. It is that of several mainstream journalists, like these two.

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/stat ... 63552?s=21

The party that gets the most votes (not 50% because there are close to a dozen options) will strike fear into their rivals. Last time Farage won 24 seats on a 26.6% popular vote share. He was thus the largest portion of our seats and won a referendum because of it. If this time he wins, say, 30% of the popular vote, and an extra couple of seats, how does that suddenly take us from a need for a Leave referendum to a need for a Remain one?

Another clever political observer, Professor Matthew Goodwin, said on Twitter today that the U.K. has gone from being immune to populism to being a case study in how not to react to it.

I think these guys are right.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:It isn’t my conclusion. It is that of several mainstream journalists, like these two.

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/stat ... 63552?s=21

The party that gets the most votes (not 50% because there are close to a dozen options) will strike fear into their rivals. Last time Farage won 24 seats on a 26.6% popular vote share. He was thus the largest portion of our seats and won a referendum because of it. If this time he wins, say, 30% of the popular vote, and an extra couple of seats, how does that suddenly take us from a need for a Leave referendum to a need for a Remain one?

Another clever political observer, Professor Matthew Goodwin, said on Twitter today that the U.K. has gone from being immune to populism to being a case study in how not to react to it.

I think these guys are right.

That 26% of the vote then translated to one or two (can’t remember) MPs at the following general election, the panic from Cameron was for nothing. And the turnout at the last EU election meant that the 26% only translated to 4 million votes.

And I would ask if these clever ‘experts’ have ever been wrong, because if they have then obviously they should be ignored.

nil_desperandum wrote:Do you actually believe that the turnout will be lower this year than it was in 2014?
Just to be clear, it was a pitiful 35% last time, and with the much heightened awareness of the EU in the intervening period it's hard to imagine the percentage not going up. It's also a big opportunity for remainers to register their opposition to the Brexit Party, and if they don't then they can't complain if brexit turns out badly.

In 2014 the election day was the same day as the local elections, as it has been for many years, and the turnout hovers around the 35% mark. (32.4% lowest, 38.5% highest). The last time the elections were not on the same day as the locals, 1999, turnout was 24%. Increased interest, yes, but don't count on a high turnout.

martin_p wrote:That 26% of the vote then translated to one or two (can’t remember) MPs at the following general election, the panic from Cameron was for nothing. And the turnout at the last EU election meant that the 26% only translated to 4 million votes.

Cameron wasn't panicking about losing seats to UKIP. He was panicking about losing votes to UKIP in marginal constituencies which could let in Labour or Liberals.