Voter registration soaring - mostly the young

[Stephen Cole]

150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

[nightjar]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young.  It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one.  The young ones
replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water.  We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative.  There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more right
leaning among the old, but not all change, while those who start out
centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum. He knows
that he probably wouldn't win another referendum, but thinks he could
win a general election (although a hung parliament seems more likely).
If he won he could then claim to have a mandate to leave without a deal.

[Norman Wells]

Post by nightjar

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young.  It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one.  The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water.  We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as
we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities,
we become more realistic and conservative.  There's a crossover point
in the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to
acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more right
leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though. The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and
70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in
mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

Post by nightjar
while those who start out
centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round. A referendum would be a substitute for
a general election. But a general election is what we currently need
because we have a government that is being prevented by Parliament from
governing. And that has to be resolved.

Post by nightjar
He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to. We've had the one that mattered.

Post by nightjar
but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

Post by nightjar
(although a hung parliament seems more likely).
If he won he could then claim to have a mandate to leave without a deal.

Good.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the "natural wastage" of
older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as
we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities,
we become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point
in the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to
acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more right
leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though. The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and
70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in
mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

A common fallacy. First a minor point. The hippies in general were
tolerant of personal choices but not particularly left wing in other
respects. But the major point is that all the left wing students, while
being of interest to their parents in the media, were a small minority
of the population. The great bulk of youth spent the sixties beating up
pakistanis and homosexuals and gradually moving from beer to lager for
their main recreational activities. I doubt if progressive/left wing
youth accounted for 10% and certainly not 20% of our generation. Even
among students left wing, right wing and not interested in politics were
groups of approximately equal size. The oft remarked permissivenes was
not in any since linked to socio-economic beliefs.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
while those who start out
centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris' goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round. A referendum would be a substitute for
a general election. But a general election is what we currently need
because we have a government that is being prevented by Parliament from
governing. And that has to be resolved.

Post by nightjar
He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to. We've had the one that mattered.

Post by nightjar
but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

Post by nightjar
(although a hung parliament seems more likely).
If he won he could then claim to have a mandate to leave without a deal.

Good.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the "natural wastage" of
older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as
we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities,
we become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point
in the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to
acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more right
leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though. The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and
70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in
mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

A common fallacy. First a minor point. The hippies in general were
tolerant of personal choices but not particularly left wing in other
respects. But the major point is that all the left wing students, while
being of interest to their parents in the media, were a small minority
of the population. The great bulk of youth spent the sixties beating up
pakistanis and homosexuals and gradually moving from beer to lager for
their main recreational activities. I doubt if progressive/left wing
youth accounted for 10% and certainly not 20% of our generation. Even
among students left wing, right wing and not interested in politics were
groups of approximately equal size. The oft remarked permissivenes was
not in any since linked to socio-economic beliefs.

So you say. But you're wrong.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to
acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more right
leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though. The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and 70s, of
which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in mid-life and
become the Tory voters of today.

Its more complicated than that, particularly given that Blair
put one hell of a bomb under Labour and wasn’t lefty at all.

And given that Labour only had a single term at a time before Blair.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
while those who start out centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round. A referendum would be a substitute for a
general election. But a general election is what we currently need
because we have a government that is being prevented by Parliament from
governing. And that has to be resolved.

That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to. We've had the one that mattered.

Post by nightjar
but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

Post by nightjar
(although a hung parliament seems more likely). If he won he could then
claim to have a mandate to leave without a deal.

Good.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:45:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
Its more complicated than that

Is it, you auto-contradicting senile asshole from Oz?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young.  It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one.  The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water.  We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but
as we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and
responsibilities, we become more realistic and conservative.
There's a crossover point in the demographic which all these
simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more
right leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though.  The evidence is that we have a Conservative
government. That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the
1960s and 70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the
cause in mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

Its more complicated than that, particularly given that Blair
put one hell of a bomb under Labour and wasn’t lefty at all.

It's got nothing to do with Blair. It's to do with the natural
progression of people through their lifetimes.

Post by Rod Speed
And given that Labour only had a single term at a time before Blair.

Post by nightjar
while those who start out centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round.  A referendum would be a substitute
for a general election.  But a general election is what we currently
need because we have a government that is being prevented by
Parliament from governing.  And that has to be resolved.

That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from dong what it was elected to do,
ie govern.

What is rquwired is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning
than even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural
wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as
we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities,
we become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point
in the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to
acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more
right leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though. The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and 70s,
of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in mid-life
and become the Tory voters of today.

Its more complicated than that, particularly given that Blair
put one hell of a bomb under Labour and wasn’t lefty at all.

It's got nothing to do with Blair. It's to do with the natural
progression of people through their lifetimes.

That can't explain why Labour has only ever managed single
terms until Blair showed up.

Or why there is a completely different result in France.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
And given that Labour only had a single term at a time before Blair.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
while those who start out centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round. A referendum would be a substitute for
a general election. But a general election is what we currently need
because we have a government that is being prevented by Parliament from
governing. And that has to be resolved.

That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't.

Of course it could because then parliament would be able
to carry on regardless and do what the chancellor has just
announced except for how it would be paid for.

Post by Norman Wells
Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being prevented by others
in Parliament from dong what it was elected to do, ie govern.

Only on the brexit question.

Post by Norman Wells
What is rquwired is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

But if it got a majority remain, the current parliament is unlikely to have
any problem with what else the current govt wants to do to govern.

Plenty of govts work fine without a parliamentary majority, by implementing
policys that some of the non govt members are prepared to vote for.

I bet the current parliament would have no problem with doing all the
stuff that the chancellor has just announced the govt will be doing.

The only real exception might be preparations for a no deal brexit.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 10:02:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
The only real exception might be preparations for a no deal brexit.

Yeah, senile Rodent, KEEP teaching those dumb Brits about how things REALLY
are in Britain! Good heavens ...what a pathological Australian asshole you
are!

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young.  It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one.  The young
ones replace the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold
any water.  We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but
as we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and
responsibilities, we become more realistic and conservative.
There's a crossover point in the demographic which all these
simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more
right leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though.  The evidence is that we have a Conservative
government. That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the
1960s and 70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the
cause in mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

Its more complicated than that, particularly given that Blair
put one hell of a bomb under Labour and wasn’t lefty at all.

It's got nothing to do with Blair. It's to do with the natural
progression of people through their lifetimes.

Post by Rod Speed
And given that Labour only had a single term at a time before Blair.

Post by nightjar
while those who start out centerist tend to stay there all their life.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

More like he isn't going to be drawn into Boris' game of trying to
present a general election as a substitute for a referendum.

It's rather the other way round.  A referendum would be a substitute
for a general election.  But a general election is what we currently
need because we have a government that is being prevented by
Parliament from governing.  And that has to be resolved.

That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from dong what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is rquwired is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

Then this applies surely:

"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."

which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on with governing Britain?

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

In what way is he 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act'? Do say.

The truth is that he has proposed an early general election fully in
accordance with its terms.

Would Corbyn be 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act' if he had
the courage to table a motion of no confidence?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on with governing Britain?

Because he doesn't have a working majority in the Commons and Parliament
will not let him get on with doing the governing lark.

There will only be a resolution of this deadlock if we have a general
election.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

What could be clearer than a general election? Vote Tory if you want a
definite Brexit by the end of October with a deal if possible. Vote
Brexit Party if you want a no deal Brexit. Vote LibDem if you want to
remain. Vote Labour if you want this absolute clarity (and a bit of a
laugh):

https://twitter.com/ellievarley13/status/1169736475904217093

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

In what way is he 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act'? Do say.

By expelling his own MP's he ensures that he does not have a working majority [for anything] in the commons. This artifice creates the condition required, but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

Post by Norman Wells
The truth is that he has proposed an early general election fully in
accordance with its terms.

And he couldn't win a vote for that, indeed he couldn't even get half the MP's to vote for let alone a qualified majority.

Post by Norman Wells
Would Corbyn be 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act' if he had
the courage to table a motion of no confidence?

He should, and probably will, once the poison pill [of a hard Brexit] is legislated out of the result of doing so.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on with governing Britain?

Because he doesn't have a working majority in the Commons and Parliament
will not let him get on with doing the governing lark.
There will only be a resolution of this deadlock if we have a general
election.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

What could be clearer than a general election? Vote Tory if you want a
definite Brexit by the end of October with a deal if possible. Vote
Brexit Party if you want a no deal Brexit. Vote LibDem if you want to
remain. Vote Labour if you want this absolute clarity (and a bit of a

The trap, as you well know, is win a vote of no confidence, Boris chooses a date after 31st October, we Leave without a deal and the will of the people (if as very likely Remain or certainly not to leave without a deal) is thwarted.

Post by Norman Wells
https://twitter.com/ellievarley13/status/1169736475904217093

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

In what way is he 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act'? Do say.

By expelling his own MP's he ensures that he does not have a working majority [for anything] in the commons. This artifice creates the condition required,

Required for what? You're being obscure.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

I asked you 'in what way?'. What's the answer?

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
The truth is that he has proposed an early general election fully in
accordance with its terms.

And he couldn't win a vote for that, indeed he couldn't even get half the MP's to vote for let alone a qualified majority.

How is that 'circumventing the Act'?

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Would Corbyn be 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act' if he had
the courage to table a motion of no confidence?

He should, and probably will, once the poison pill [of a hard Brexit] is legislated out of the result of doing so.

He may not have the opportunity, or the luxury of any choice. See my
other post this morning in the 'Dying in a ditch' thread. Boris could,
at least in theory, resign, leaving a no deal Brexit to happen by default.

But in any case what I asked was whether that would be 'circumventing
the Act' too.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on with governing Britain?

Because he doesn't have a working majority in the Commons and Parliament
will not let him get on with doing the governing lark.
There will only be a resolution of this deadlock if we have a general
election.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

What could be clearer than a general election? Vote Tory if you want a
definite Brexit by the end of October with a deal if possible. Vote
Brexit Party if you want a no deal Brexit. Vote LibDem if you want to
remain. Vote Labour if you want this absolute clarity (and a bit of a

The trap, as you well know, is win a vote of no confidence, Boris chooses a date after 31st October, we Leave without a deal and the will of the people (if as very likely Remain or certainly not to leave without a deal) is thwarted.

It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
https://twitter.com/ellievarley13/status/1169736475904217093

[Pamela]

Post by Norman Wells
It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Diddums. Corbyn will decide what to do in good time.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

In what way is he 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act'? Do say.

By expelling his own MP's he ensures that he does not have a working majority [for anything] in the commons. This artifice creates the condition required,

Required for what? You're being obscure.

Just read the above again.

OK because you are so slow - so he can say he does not have a majority for anything and we need a general election.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

I asked you 'in what way?'. What's the answer?

It is meant to cover not having the confidence of the commons (it says that BTW), not a situation where a PM expels his own MP's to ensure a minority and so precipitate an early election, which is what the fixed term act was created to avoid.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
The truth is that he has proposed an early general election fully in
accordance with its terms.

And he couldn't win a vote for that, indeed he couldn't even get half the MP's to vote for let alone a qualified majority.

How is that 'circumventing the Act'?

That isn't - he lost.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Would Corbyn be 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act' if he had
the courage to table a motion of no confidence?

He should, and probably will, once the poison pill [of a hard Brexit] is legislated out of the result of doing so.

He may not have the opportunity, or the luxury of any choice. See my
other post this morning in the 'Dying in a ditch' thread. Boris could,
at least in theory, resign, leaving a no deal Brexit to happen by default.
But in any case what I asked was whether that would be 'circumventing
the Act' too.

Not that Act, but probably the one likely to gain assent tomorrow, without presuming upon HM's wishes of course.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on with governing Britain?

Because he doesn't have a working majority in the Commons and Parliament
will not let him get on with doing the governing lark.
There will only be a resolution of this deadlock if we have a general
election.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

What could be clearer than a general election? Vote Tory if you want a
definite Brexit by the end of October with a deal if possible. Vote
Brexit Party if you want a no deal Brexit. Vote LibDem if you want to
remain. Vote Labour if you want this absolute clarity (and a bit of a

The trap, as you well know, is win a vote of no confidence, Boris chooses a date after 31st October, we Leave without a deal and the will of the people (if as very likely Remain or certainly not to leave without a deal) is thwarted.

It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Well it might. Corbyn becoming PM after this mess, would be a bit like the tsunami arriving after an earthquake and then a fire: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Notice the uncanny coincidence re the date!

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
https://twitter.com/ellievarley13/status/1169736475904217093

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.

In what way is he 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act'? Do say.

By expelling his own MP's he ensures that he does not have a working majority [for anything] in the commons. This artifice creates the condition required,

Required for what? You're being obscure.

Just read the above again.
OK because you are so slow - so he can say he does not have a majority for anything and we need a general election.

That's not a necessary precondition. That nice Mrs May had an overall
majority when she went to the country in 2017, before she got a bloody
nose. It wasn't necessary then to have run out of support, so why is it
now?

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

I asked you 'in what way?'. What's the answer?

It is meant to cover not having the confidence of the commons (it says that BTW), not a situation where a PM expels his own MP's to ensure a minority and so precipitate an early election, which is what the fixed term act was created to avoid.

Boris has never had an overall majority. His is a minority government,
propped up with promised support from the DUP on just supply and
confidence issues. He didn't need to reduce his support any further to
justify a general election nor, as I said, is it a precondition for one.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
The truth is that he has proposed an early general election fully in
accordance with its terms.

And he couldn't win a vote for that, indeed he couldn't even get half the MP's to vote for let alone a qualified majority.

How is that 'circumventing the Act'?

That isn't - he lost.

Exactly. So, something needs to be done.

"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine dedmocracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."

You see, even Mr Corbyn agrees.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Would Corbyn be 'circumventing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act' if he had
the courage to table a motion of no confidence?

He should, and probably will, once the poison pill [of a hard Brexit] is legislated out of the result of doing so.

He may not have the opportunity, or the luxury of any choice. See my
other post this morning in the 'Dying in a ditch' thread. Boris could,
at least in theory, resign, leaving a no deal Brexit to happen by default.
But in any case what I asked was whether that would be 'circumventing
the Act' too.

Not that Act, but probably the one likely to gain assent tomorrow, without presuming upon HM's wishes of course.

Which frankly deserves to be circumvented.

Circumvention, by the way, isn't illegal.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Well it might. Corbyn becoming PM after this mess, would be a bit like the tsunami arriving after an earthquake and then a fire: -

Can't quite see it myself.

Would your lot get into bed with him?

[R. Mark Clayton]

SNIP

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OK because you are so slow - so he can say he does not have a majority for anything and we need a general election.

That's not a necessary precondition. That nice Mrs May had an overall
majority when she went to the country in 2017, before she got a bloody
nose. It wasn't necessary then to have run out of support, so why is it
now?

She got parliament to vote for it, Boris hasn't, but may try again tomorrow.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

I asked you 'in what way?'. What's the answer?

It is meant to cover not having the confidence of the commons (it says that BTW), not a situation where a PM expels his own MP's to ensure a minority and so precipitate an early election, which is what the fixed term act was created to avoid.

Boris has never had an overall majority. His is a minority government,
propped up with promised support from the DUP on just supply and
confidence issues.

The Tories did not on their own the government did with the DUP, well until last week.

Post by Norman Wells
He didn't need to reduce his support any further to
justify a general election nor, as I said, is it a precondition for one.

You are trying to say that he could not govern at all, whereas the reality is it is just one issue.

SNIP

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Not that Act, but probably the one likely to gain assent tomorrow, without presuming upon HM's wishes of course.

Which frankly deserves to be circumvented.

I would like to be able to 'circumvent' the speed limit on motorways, which is IMO too low, but the law says otherwise.

Post by Norman Wells
Circumvention, by the way, isn't illegal.

It is a bit like tax avoidance / evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is criminal.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Well it might. Corbyn becoming PM after this mess, would be a bit like the tsunami arriving after an earthquake and then a fire: -

Can't quite see it myself.
Would your lot get into bed with him?

I am not an MP, but very short term to prevent a hard Brexit disaster probably. Just like Labour and the Tories during WWII.

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
OK because you are so slow - so he can say he does not have a majority for anything and we need a general election.

That's not a necessary precondition. That nice Mrs May had an overall
majority when she went to the country in 2017, before she got a bloody
nose. It wasn't necessary then to have run out of support, so why is it
now?

She got parliament to vote for it, Boris hasn't, but may try again tomorrow.

It's still not a necessary precondition.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but is obviously a circumvention of the Act.

I asked you 'in what way?'. What's the answer?

It is meant to cover not having the confidence of the commons (it says that BTW), not a situation where a PM expels his own MP's to ensure a minority and so precipitate an early election, which is what the fixed term act was created to avoid.

Boris has never had an overall majority. His is a minority government,
propped up with promised support from the DUP on just supply and
confidence issues.

The Tories did not on their own the government did with the DUP, well until last week.

Post by Norman Wells
He didn't need to reduce his support any further to
justify a general election nor, as I said, is it a precondition for one.

You are trying to say that he could not govern at all, whereas the reality is it is just one issue.

It doesn't matter whether he could or not. His was a minority
government from the start, and that is inherently unstable. He's
perfectly within his rights to propose an early general election, and
no-one in the circumstances can blame him for doing so.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Not that Act, but probably the one likely to gain assent tomorrow, without presuming upon HM's wishes of course.

Which frankly deserves to be circumvented.

I would like to be able to 'circumvent' the speed limit on motorways, which is IMO too low, but the law says otherwise.

That's not 'circumventing' the law but breaking it. Circumvention is
not illegal. It's getting round the law by legal means.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Circumvention, by the way, isn't illegal.

It is a bit like tax avoidance / evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is criminal.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
It's up to that nice Mr Corbyn to decide what he does, but his
extraordinary and indeed unique in history decision not to accede to or
precipitate an early general election may yet rebound on him.

Well it might. Corbyn becoming PM after this mess, would be a bit like the tsunami arriving after an earthquake and then a fire: -

Can't quite see it myself.
Would your lot get into bed with him?

I am not an MP, but very short term to prevent a hard Brexit disaster probably. Just like Labour and the Tories during WWII.
Care to tell us? Will your lot endorse Corbyn for PM for example?

You said:

"OK again this time in capitals: -

Rt. Hon. KENNETH CLARK MP or Rt. Hon. HARRIET HARMAN MP"

Do make up your mind!

And what did those capitals mean?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is being
prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was elected to do,
ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would not
give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take
back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of
bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying
to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the Commons,
which he needs in order to have a functioning government. Some of those
he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually expelled, have already
joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the LibDems or Change UK and
have taken their shilling, so won't come back to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on
with governing Britain?

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him
pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive
the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

Personally, I don't want Boris deposed by holding a general election.
The multitude of promises he's been making are exactly what the UK needs
- apart from the absurd idea of leaving the EU. I'd rather he was left
to implement all his promises, but we also have a second referendum
specifically to allow The People to reverse TWOTP in 2016.

[Vidcapper]

Post by Ian Jackson
Personally, I don't want Boris deposed by holding a general election.
The multitude of promises he's been making are exactly what the UK needs
- apart from the absurd idea of leaving the EU. I'd rather he was left
to implement all his promises, but we also have a second referendum
specifically to allow The People to reverse TWOTP in 2016.

Which would solve what exactly?

A narrow Remain vote would mean no more than the narrow Brexit one.

[Grikbahhar®™]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson
Personally, I don't want Boris deposed by holding a general election.
The multitude of promises he's been making are exactly what the UK needs
- apart from the absurd idea of leaving the EU. I'd rather he was left
to implement all his promises, but we also have a second referendum
specifically to allow The People to reverse TWOTP in 2016.

Which would solve what exactly?
A narrow Remain vote would mean no more than the narrow Brexit one.

Indeed. But since nothing needs to be done as a result, it would be
more in keeping with the workshy British character.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 04:32:47 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Grikbahhar®™

Post by Vidcapper
Which would solve what exactly?
A narrow Remain vote would mean no more than the narrow Brexit one.

Indeed. But since nothing needs to be done as a result, it would be
more in keeping with the workshy British character.

This coming from the unemployable, clinically insane, perverted troll who
has been "living" on Usenet for OVER TWENTY YEARS, around the clock!

[Pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Rod Speed
That could be resolved by a second referendum with a majority to remain.

No, it couldn't. Boris's administration is a minority one. It is
being prevented by others in Parliament from doing what it was
elected to do, ie govern.
What is required is a general election. A further referendum would
not give Boris or anyone else the authority and power it needs to
govern.

The only thing it would deprive him of is Brexit. He could take
back the score of time served Tory MP's he expelled in a show of
bravado and carry on actually running the country instead of trying
to ruin it in a no deal Brexit.

For whatever reason, he does not have a working majority in the
Commons, which he needs in order to have a functioning government.
Some of those he's lost, and he's lost more than he's actually
expelled, have already joined rag, tag and bobtail parties like the
LibDems or Change UK and have taken their shilling, so won't come back
to the mothership.

So he turfs out MP's to circumvent the fixed term parliament act, which he voted for.
Why doesn't he just abandon his one highly unpopular policy and get on
with governing Britain?

Post by Norman Wells
"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is
not to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide
and call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is
the democratic way forward."
which is what that nice Mr Corbyn said only four or five days ago.

Mr. Corbyn is so nice he had to have the elephant trap set for him
pointed out by his predecessor. Hold a general election and deprive
the people of the one thing they DO want a vote on...

Personally, I don't want Boris deposed by holding a general election.
The multitude of promises he's been making are exactly what the UK needs

The affordability of Boris's largesse is the issue, not the necessity.

Anyone can promise the earth if they don't have to deliver.

Post by Ian Jackson
- apart from the absurd idea of leaving the EU. I'd rather he was left
to implement all his promises, but we also have a second referendum
specifically to allow The People to reverse TWOTP in 2016.

[nightjar]

...

Post by nightjar
Not entirely. There are more left leaning among the young and more
right leaning among the old, but not all change,

Most do though.  The evidence is that we have a Conservative government.
 That would be impossible if all the young lefties in the 1960s and
70s, of which there were vast numbers, hadn't abandoned the cause in
mid-life and become the Tory voters of today.

A recent study showed that, while the right wing leanings come with age
theory is true to some extent, it has also been found that there is a
generational effect as well. Not every generation starts from the same
base line and the current trend is for successive generations to start
off more left wing than their predecessors. That means that, while
members of that generation may well move to the right as they age, they
probably won't end up as far right as the generation before them. The
crossover point is not fixed.

...

It's rather the other way round.  A referendum would be a substitute for
a general election.  But a general election is what we currently need
because we have a government that is being prevented by Parliament from
governing.  And that has to be resolved.

That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

Post by nightjar
He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to.  We've had the one that mattered.

Aside from the fact that the evidence is that public opinion now favours
remain over leave, that referendum only gave the government a mandate to
leave the EU. It did not give it a mandate to leave in the most damaging
way possible. People have a right to the sort of Brexit that the Leave
campaign described, which is not what they would get with a no deal
Brexit. If Boris wants to be able to claim that the people back a no
deal Brexit, he can only do so if he gets a clear mandate for that
option in another referendum.

Post by nightjar
but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

He isn't running scared. he simply isn't going to dance to Boris' tune.
Labour has already said it is quite willing to support a general
election in mid-November.

[Norman Wells]

Post by nightjar

It's rather the other way round.  A referendum would be a substitute
for a general election.  But a general election is what we currently
need because we have a government that is being prevented by
Parliament from governing.  And that has to be resolved.

That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit. If he had, Farage
would not be saying at his conference that he will fight the
Conservatives in every seat in the land.

What Boris has done is insist on no deal being an option. He at least
appreciates the first rule of Negotiation 101 that you have to be
prepared to walk away with no deal rather than a bad deal.

Post by nightjar

Post by nightjar
He knows that he probably wouldn't win another referendum,

He doesn't have to.  We've had the one that mattered.

Aside from the fact that the evidence is that public opinion now favours
remain over leave, that referendum only gave the government a mandate to
leave the EU. It did not give it a mandate to leave in the most damaging
way possible.

It gave the government a mandate to leave the EU in the way the
government saw fit. The referendum set the direction and handed the
matter back to the government to implement.

Post by nightjar
People have a right to the sort of Brexit that the Leave
campaign described, which is not what they would get with a no deal
Brexit.

The people were not going to be consulted after the referendum. That
much was made very clear. 'The government will implement what you
decide' said the leaflet that came thudding through our letterboxes.
And it was supposed to be a 'once in a generation' opportunity for the
people to decide.

Besides, there are many who say the original question was too difficult
for voters to understand. Heaven alone knows how the public are
supposed to understand all the nuances of the different sorts of Brexit
there might be.

Post by nightjar
If Boris wants to be able to claim that the people back a no
deal Brexit, he can only do so if he gets a clear mandate for that
option in another referendum.

Post by nightjar
but thinks he could win a general election

Well, that's better surely than Corbyn who is running scared of one.

He isn't running scared. he simply isn't going to dance to Boris' tune.
Labour has already said it is quite willing to support a general
election in mid-November.

Never before in history has an opposition party spurned a chance to have
an election that could see them elected to power. It's supposed to be
what they want.

There's no getting away from it. Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting
an election and being ready for one just four days ago:

"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine dedmocracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."

(from 3:02 in)

Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at all.

He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

[nightjar]

...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included,
to put the national interest before their own careers. He single
handedly lost the government's working majority and, having lost
control, nobody trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit.

He has said he would have the UK leave on 31st October, deal or no deal.
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal and has suspended
parliament, so there wouldn't be enough time to debate it if he did. His
intentions couldn't be more clear if they were written in 10 foot high
letters across the front of the Palace of Westminster.

Post by Norman Wells
If he had, Farage
would not be saying at his conference that he will fight the
Conservatives in every seat in the land....

That is just Nigel throwing his toys out of the pram, because he isn't
getting the media attention he thinks he deserves. If it were about
Brexit, rather than about Nigel wanting to feel important, he would say
that The Brexit party would not be putting up any candidates in a
general election and urging anybody who would have voted for them to
vote Conservative.

David Cameron didn't call the referendum because he thought that UKIP
would ever be a serious force in parliament. He called it because he
thought they could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose them
a general election. The same applies now with TBP. If Boris is going to
be the one to take the UK out of the EU, he needs to win Labour marginal
seats in Leave voting areas. At Peterborough, the Brexit party took
Leave voters from Labour, but far more from the Conservatives, with the
result that Labour won. Had TBP supporters voted Conservative, it would
have been a decisive Conservative win. The same is likely to happen in
any Labour marginal in any Leave area.

...

Post by Norman Wells
There's no getting away from it.  Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting

...

Post by Norman Wells
Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at all.
He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

As I said, Labour is more than willing to have a general election, but
when it suits them, in November, not when it suits Boris.

[Rod Speed]

Post by nightjar
...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit.

He has said he would have the UK leave on 31st October, deal or no deal.

Yes, to put a bomb under Barnier.

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie.

Post by nightjar
and has suspended parliament,

Must be why we saw the shit fight last week.

Post by nightjar
so there wouldn't be enough time to debate it if he did.

Another bare faced remoaner lie.

Post by nightjar
His intentions couldn't be more clear if they were written in 10 foot high
letters across the front of the Palace of Westminster.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells
If he had, Farage would not be saying at his conference that he will
fight the Conservatives in every seat in the land....

That is just Nigel throwing his toys out of the pram, because he isn't
getting the media attention he thinks he deserves.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar
If it were about Brexit, rather than about Nigel wanting to feel
important, he would say that The Brexit party would not be putting up any
candidates in a general election and urging anybody who would have voted
for them to vote Conservative.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar
David Cameron didn't call the referendum because he thought that UKIP
would ever be a serious force in parliament. He called it because he
thought they could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose them a
general election.

Nope, he had the referendum stupidly assuming that it would
produce a result that would shut up the Tory brexiteers.

Post by nightjar
The same applies now with TBP. If Boris is going to be the one to take the
UK out of the EU, he needs to win Labour marginal seats in Leave voting
areas.

BULLSHIT given the Labour poll results.

Post by nightjar
At Peterborough, the Brexit party took Leave voters from Labour, but far
more from the Conservatives, with the result that Labour won.

One seat proves nothing, stupid.

Post by nightjar
Had TBP supporters voted Conservative, it would have been a decisive
Conservative win. The same is likely to happen in any Labour marginal in
any Leave area.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells
There's no getting away from it. Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting an
Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at all.
He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

As I said, Labour is more than willing to have a general election, but
when it suits them, in November, not when it suits Boris.

We'll see...

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by nightjar
That is entirely down to Boris. It was his insistence on a no deal
Brexit that lead a number of Conservative MPs, his brother included, to
put the national interest before their own careers. He single handedly
lost the government's working majority and, having lost control, nobody
trusts him enough to give it back.

But actually he hasn't insisted on a no deal Brexit.

He has said he would have the UK leave on 31st October, deal or no deal.

Yes, to put a bomb under Barnier.

He has popped the paper bag and both the outgoing and incoming EU administration were a little startled.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie.

Cite what he has done?

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
and has suspended parliament,

Must be why we saw the shit fight last week.

Post by nightjar
so there wouldn't be enough time to debate it if he did.

Another bare faced remoaner lie.

Oh so why did he try and reduce the parliamentary time left so drastically - tradition? Pull the other one!

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
His intentions couldn't be more clear if they were written in 10 foot high
letters across the front of the Palace of Westminster.

Written by Boris on documents presented in court.

Post by Rod Speed
Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells
If he had, Farage would not be saying at his conference that he will
fight the Conservatives in every seat in the land....

That is just Nigel throwing his toys out of the pram, because he isn't
getting the media attention he thinks he deserves.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you
usually manage and that’s saying something.

Nigel has remained Nigel, although being careful not to further inflame the remain side.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
If it were about Brexit, rather than about Nigel wanting to feel
important, he would say that The Brexit party would not be putting up any
candidates in a general election and urging anybody who would have voted
for them to vote Conservative.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and that’s saying something.

And what do you think he will do?

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
David Cameron didn't call the referendum because he thought that UKIP
would ever be a serious force in parliament. He called it because he
thought they could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose them a
general election.

Nope, he had the referendum stupidly assuming that it would
produce a result that would shut up the Tory brexiteers.

Post by nightjar
The same applies now with TBP. If Boris is going to be the one to take the
UK out of the EU, he needs to win Labour marginal seats in Leave voting
areas.

BULLSHIT given the Labour poll results.

Post by nightjar
At Peterborough, the Brexit party took Leave voters from Labour, but far
more from the Conservatives, with the result that Labour won.

One seat proves nothing, stupid.

Post by nightjar
Had TBP supporters voted Conservative, it would have been a decisive
Conservative win. The same is likely to happen in any Labour marginal in
any Leave area.

Even more sillier than you usually
manage and that’s saying something.

Post by nightjar

Post by Norman Wells
There's no getting away from it. Corbyn was unequivocal about wanting an
Now that one has been offered, it turns out he didn't really mean it at all.
He's running scared and denying the 'democratic way forward' he so nobly
espoused so little time ago.

All the sensible MP's (a majority now) rightly declining to fall into the trap of having an election that could not change the one thing people want to vote about (over six million before they cut off the petition).

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
As I said, Labour is more than willing to have a general election, but
when it suits them, in November, not when it suits Boris.

We'll see...

[Peeler]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:09:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
Yes, to put a bomb under Barnier.

Barnier? That's a European. So, NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

Post by Rod Speed
We'll see...

We'll see you trolling in all these groups like there was no tomorrow, you
85-year-old trolling senile pest!

[nightjar]

...

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

[abelard]

Post by nightjar
...

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

get as much sense out of agent cob and dinah

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by nightjar
...

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

And you WILL get a barefaced lie.
That smells of fish.

[Rod Speed]

Post by nightjar
...

Post by nightjar
He has made no serious moves to negotiate a deal

That’s a bare faced lie...

Ask Amber Rudd.

She's no authority on that. We know what he has setup
meetings wise in the time between now and 29-Oct
because the EU has spelt that out.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:57:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed

Post by nightjar
Ask Amber Rudd.

She's no authority on that.

She certainly is no trolling asshole like you. Come to think of it, even
Boris isn't, although he comes very close to being one!

[Joe]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:28:15 +0100

Post by nightjar
A recent study showed that, while the right wing leanings come with
age theory is true to some extent, it has also been found that there
is a generational effect as well. Not every generation starts from
the same base line and the current trend is for successive
generations to start off more left wing than their predecessors. That
means that, while members of that generation may well move to the
right as they age, they probably won't end up as far right as the
generation before them. The crossover point is not fixed.

It is also the case that political bias and Political Correctness in
education has steadily increased with time (Long March Through the
Institutions, Common Purpose, the EU
(https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/education/eu-teaching-materials_en)
etc.)

After a year or two out of education, the more intelligent ones will
see that and many will be quite annoyed about it. Also, my generation
pushed back against mainly Right-wing parents, but today's generation
have more Left-wing parents.

So it could just as easily go the other way.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:28:15 +0100

Post by nightjar
A recent study showed that, while the right wing leanings come with
age theory is true to some extent, it has also been found that there
is a generational effect as well. Not every generation starts from
the same base line and the current trend is for successive
generations to start off more left wing than their predecessors. That
means that, while members of that generation may well move to the
right as they age, they probably won't end up as far right as the
generation before them. The crossover point is not fixed.

It is also the case that political bias and Political Correctness in
education has steadily increased with time (Long March Through the
Institutions, Common Purpose, the EU
(https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/education/eu-teaching-materials_en)
etc.)
After a year or two out of education, the more intelligent ones will
see that and many will be quite annoyed about it. Also, my generation
pushed back against mainly Right-wing parents, but today's generation
have more Left-wing parents.

That is why academics display a childlike innocence in their political bias.

Post by Joe
So it could just as easily go the other way.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
That is why academics display a childlike innocence in their political bias.

Good to know you don't consider yourself an academic then.

And your choice of name even stranger given natural philosophy was largely
confined to academics of the time.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

This is true and many 18 year olds will just be starting at university and need to register there etc.

OTOH didn't you think that the electorate stayed the same and we should stick with the narrow result in a referendum held over three years ago even though demographic changes alone would reverse the result?

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

This is also true on classical left right politics "if you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 45 you have no brain"...

However the primary and extremely close correlation for Leave / Remain was educational attainment (of A' levels) which for historical reasons young people are more than likely to have (well over 50%), whereas older voters, especially those who have naturally expired and so can non longer vote were far less likely to have.

Everyone gets older. Few people increase their educational attainment much after the age of ~25.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Not if it lets Boris short circuit any election.

Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

Perhaps he has - not good for either.

The Tories looks to go back to zero or one seat in Scotland [again],
get hammered in London, the home counties and 'university towns' and unlikely to make much headway in Labour / Leave strongholds, because those areas particularly gullible electors will again fall for whatever pap Labour promises them just like 2017 and how they were suckered by Leave in 2016.

Although Boris has a large lead over Corbyn, he is starting from ~30% - when was the last time a majority government was elected on 30%?

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

This is true and many 18 year olds will just be starting at university and need to register there etc.
OTOH didn't you think that the electorate stayed the same and we should stick with the narrow result in a referendum held over three years ago even though demographic changes alone would reverse the result?

Nope. That's just what I consider below. People change in mid-life to
become more conservative. That's always ignored in simplistic
assumptions like yours. All you do is say the old die off and the young
replace them, ignoring completely what happens in the middle while all
the excitement is happening at the edges..

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

This is also true on classical left right politics "if you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 45 you have no brain"...

And it's still true.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However the primary and extremely close correlation for Leave / Remain was educational attainment (of A' levels) which for historical reasons young people are more than likely to have (well over 50%), whereas older voters, especially those who have naturally expired and so can non longer vote were far less likely to have.
Everyone gets older. Few people increase their educational attainment much after the age of ~25.

That's irrelevant. The argument above was about age demographics,
nothing else.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Not if it lets Boris short circuit any election.

Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

Perhaps he has - not good for either.
The Tories looks to go back to zero or one seat in Scotland [again],
get hammered in London, the home counties and 'university towns' and unlikely to make much headway in Labour / Leave strongholds, because those areas particularly gullible electors will again fall for whatever pap Labour promises them just like 2017 and how they were suckered by Leave in 2016.
Although Boris has a large lead over Corbyn, he is starting from ~30% - when was the last time a majority government was elected on 30%?

You don't seem to consider the Brexit Party in all this. Depending on
what Boris says about Brexit in the election campaign, he could well
hoover up a lot of their votes from people who would rather vote for an
established, proven party to form their government for the next 5 years
than for a single issue lot who no-one knows what they would do as
regards all the other matters government has to deal with.

The Tories are currently on about 35% in the polls, with the Brexit
Party on about 11%. Together, if Boris can get them combined or can
corner a fair number of them, that's very easily a winning number.

Labour, on the other hand, who are on about 25%, would have to get
virtually all the votes off other remain parties such as the Greens (on
7%) and your lot, the LibDems (on 16%). Are you going to give them any?
Are the Greens? If not, the remain vote will be hopelessly split and
you'll all be parasitising the others, leaving it for the Tories to win.

No wonder Corbyn's running scared.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1173387/general-election-2019-polls-tories-brexit-party-labour-snap-election

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

This is true and many 18 year olds will just be starting at university and need to register there etc.
OTOH didn't you think that the electorate stayed the same and we should stick with the narrow result in a referendum held over three years ago even though demographic changes alone would reverse the result?

Nope. That's just what I consider below. People change in mid-life to
become more conservative. That's always ignored in simplistic
assumptions like yours. All you do is say the old die off and the young
replace them, ignoring completely what happens in the middle while all
the excitement is happening at the edges..

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

This is also true on classical left right politics "if you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 45 you have no brain"...

And it's still true.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However the primary and extremely close correlation for Leave / Remain was educational attainment (of A' levels) which for historical reasons young people are more than likely to have (well over 50%), whereas older voters, especially those who have naturally expired and so can non longer vote were far less likely to have.
Everyone gets older. Few people increase their educational attainment much after the age of ~25.

That's irrelevant. The argument above was about age demographics,
nothing else.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Not if it lets Boris short circuit any election.

Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

Perhaps he has - not good for either.
The Tories looks to go back to zero or one seat in Scotland [again],
get hammered in London, the home counties and 'university towns' and unlikely to make much headway in Labour / Leave strongholds, because those areas particularly gullible electors will again fall for whatever pap Labour promises them just like 2017 and how they were suckered by Leave in 2016.
Although Boris has a large lead over Corbyn, he is starting from ~30% - when was the last time a majority government was elected on 30%?

You don't seem to consider the Brexit Party in all this. Depending on
what Boris says about Brexit in the election campaign, he could well
hoover up a lot of their votes from people who would rather vote for an
established, proven party to form their government for the next 5 years
than for a single issue lot who no-one knows what they would do as
regards all the other matters government has to deal with.

True, but the polls already reflect that bounce.

Post by Norman Wells
The Tories are currently on about 35% in the polls, with the Brexit
Party on about 11%. Together, if Boris can get them combined or can
corner a fair number of them, that's very easily a winning number.

30% and 14%
Loading Image...
big if.

Post by Norman Wells
Labour, on the other hand, who are on about 25%, would have to get
virtually all the votes off other remain parties such as the Greens (on
7%) and your lot, the LibDems (on 16%). Are you going to give them any?
Are the Greens? If not, the remain vote will be hopelessly split and
you'll all be parasitising the others, leaving it for the Tories to win.

That is a genuine problem - big Remain (or certainly anti-no deal) majority, no single party and a discredited FPTP electoral system.

Post by Norman Wells
No wonder Corbyn's running scared.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1173387/general-election-2019-polls-tories-brexit-party-labour-snap-election

[Norman Wells]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

This is true and many 18 year olds will just be starting at university and need to register there etc.
OTOH didn't you think that the electorate stayed the same and we should stick with the narrow result in a referendum held over three years ago even though demographic changes alone would reverse the result?

Nope. That's just what I consider below. People change in mid-life to
become more conservative. That's always ignored in simplistic
assumptions like yours. All you do is say the old die off and the young
replace them, ignoring completely what happens in the middle while all
the excitement is happening at the edges..

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

This is also true on classical left right politics "if you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 45 you have no brain"...

And it's still true.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However the primary and extremely close correlation for Leave / Remain was educational attainment (of A' levels) which for historical reasons young people are more than likely to have (well over 50%), whereas older voters, especially those who have naturally expired and so can non longer vote were far less likely to have.
Everyone gets older. Few people increase their educational attainment much after the age of ~25.

That's irrelevant. The argument above was about age demographics,
nothing else.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Not if it lets Boris short circuit any election.

Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

Perhaps he has - not good for either.
The Tories looks to go back to zero or one seat in Scotland [again],
get hammered in London, the home counties and 'university towns' and unlikely to make much headway in Labour / Leave strongholds, because those areas particularly gullible electors will again fall for whatever pap Labour promises them just like 2017 and how they were suckered by Leave in 2016.
Although Boris has a large lead over Corbyn, he is starting from ~30% - when was the last time a majority government was elected on 30%?

You don't seem to consider the Brexit Party in all this. Depending on
what Boris says about Brexit in the election campaign, he could well
hoover up a lot of their votes from people who would rather vote for an
established, proven party to form their government for the next 5 years
than for a single issue lot who no-one knows what they would do as
regards all the other matters government has to deal with.

True, but the polls already reflect that bounce.

Post by Norman Wells
The Tories are currently on about 35% in the polls, with the Brexit
Party on about 11%. Together, if Boris can get them combined or can
corner a fair number of them, that's very easily a winning number.

30% and 14%
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/UK_opinion_polls.svg/2000px-UK_opinion_polls.svg.png

You will believe what you want to believe. I take the yougov figures as
they correspond pretty well with other polls.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
big if.

An easier 'if' than Labour, the LibDems and the Greens coming together.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Labour, on the other hand, who are on about 25%, would have to get
virtually all the votes off other remain parties such as the Greens (on
7%) and your lot, the LibDems (on 16%). Are you going to give them any?
Are the Greens? If not, the remain vote will be hopelessly split and
you'll all be parasitising the others, leaving it for the Tories to win.

That is a genuine problem - big Remain (or certainly anti-no deal) majority, no single party and a discredited FPTP electoral system.

Moan and whinge about it as much as you like, wring your hands in
despair if it helps, cry into your hankie, but we have the system we
have, and you're not going to change it.

So, 'genuine problem' indeed, to which you, Labour and the Greens have
no answer. Which means, of course, that you'll be handing victory to
Boris and the Tories.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
No wonder Corbyn's running scared.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1173387/general-election-2019-polls-tories-brexit-party-labour-snap-election

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It
follows from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones
replace the old ones.

This is true and many 18 year olds will just be starting at university and need to register there etc.
OTOH didn't you think that the electorate stayed the same and we should stick with the narrow result in a referendum held over three years ago even though demographic changes alone would reverse the result?

Nope. That's just what I consider below. People change in mid-life to
become more conservative. That's always ignored in simplistic
assumptions like yours. All you do is say the old die off and the young
replace them, ignoring completely what happens in the middle while all
the excitement is happening at the edges..

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in
the demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

This is also true on classical left right politics "if you are not a socialist at 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 45 you have no brain"...

And it's still true.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However the primary and extremely close correlation for Leave / Remain was educational attainment (of A' levels) which for historical reasons young people are more than likely to have (well over 50%), whereas older voters, especially those who have naturally expired and so can non longer vote were far less likely to have.
Everyone gets older. Few people increase their educational attainment much after the age of ~25.

That's irrelevant. The argument above was about age demographics,
nothing else.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.

Not if it lets Boris short circuit any election.

Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

Perhaps he has - not good for either.
The Tories looks to go back to zero or one seat in Scotland [again],
get hammered in London, the home counties and 'university towns' and unlikely to make much headway in Labour / Leave strongholds, because those areas particularly gullible electors will again fall for whatever pap Labour promises them just like 2017 and how they were suckered by Leave in 2016.
Although Boris has a large lead over Corbyn, he is starting from ~30% - when was the last time a majority government was elected on 30%?

You don't seem to consider the Brexit Party in all this. Depending on
what Boris says about Brexit in the election campaign, he could well
hoover up a lot of their votes from people who would rather vote for an
established, proven party to form their government for the next 5 years
than for a single issue lot who no-one knows what they would do as
regards all the other matters government has to deal with.

True, but the polls already reflect that bounce.

Post by Norman Wells
The Tories are currently on about 35% in the polls, with the Brexit
Party on about 11%. Together, if Boris can get them combined or can
corner a fair number of them, that's very easily a winning number.

30% and 14%
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/UK_opinion_polls.svg/2000px-UK_opinion_polls.svg.png

You will believe what you want to believe. I take the yougov figures as
they correspond pretty well with other polls.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
big if.

An easier 'if' than Labour, the LibDems and the Greens coming together.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
Labour, on the other hand, who are on about 25%, would have to get
virtually all the votes off other remain parties such as the Greens (on
7%) and your lot, the LibDems (on 16%). Are you going to give them any?
Are the Greens? If not, the remain vote will be hopelessly split and
you'll all be parasitising the others, leaving it for the Tories to win.

That is a genuine problem - big Remain (or certainly anti-no deal) majority, no single party and a discredited FPTP electoral system.

Moan and whinge about it as much as you like, wring your hands in
despair if it helps, cry into your hankie, but we have the system we
have, and you're not going to change it.
So, 'genuine problem' indeed, to which you, Labour and the Greens have
no answer. Which means, of course, that you'll be handing victory to
Boris and the Tories.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Norman Wells
No wonder Corbyn's running scared.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1173387/general-election-2019-polls-tories-brexit-party-labour-snap-election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_United_Kingdom_general_election

[Chris Green]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we
grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we
become more realistic and conservative.

Maybe true of some people but by no means all. I think if anything I
have drifted slightly more left as I have got older but I've been
basically middle of the road Lib-Dem[ish] just about all my life.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It follows
from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones replace
the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic

I didn’t. Boris didn’t either. Maggie didn’t either.

but as we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and
responsibilities, we become more realistic and conservative.

Corbyn and Foot didn’t.

There's a crossover point in the demographic which all these simplistic
arguments fail to acknowledge.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 06:13:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Post by Rod Speed
I didn’t. Boris didn’t either. Maggie didn’t either.

Neither Boris nor Maggie are any of yours, Ozzie pest!

Post by Rod Speed

but as we grow up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and
responsibilities, we become more realistic and conservative.

Corbyn and Foot didn’t.

Neither Corbyn nor Foot are any of yours, senile trolling Ozzietard!

[Brian Gaff]

I personally feel that the reason they do not want an election is because in
the interim time the date will come to pass and we will be out by default.
Have you ever considered why there is actually a date in the first place?
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young

The majority of new voters registering is *always* the young. It follows
from having a lower age limit but no upper one. The young ones replace
the old ones.

Post by Stephen Cole
(under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the "natural wastage" of older
right/leave voters.

This argument has been run so many times before, and it doesn't hold any
water. We all start out left-leaning, naive and idealistic but as we grow
up, and have families, jobs, mortgages and responsibilities, we become
more realistic and conservative. There's a crossover point in the
demographic which all these simplistic arguments fail to acknowledge.

Post by Stephen Cole
Looks like Boris' goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Strange that Corbyn has declined to put it to the test then.
Perhaps he's looked at the polls.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Brian Gaff
I personally feel that the reason they do not want an election is because in
the interim time the date will come to pass and we will be out by default.
Have you ever considered why there is actually a date in the first place?

It's a question I have asked here several times. Sadly, no-one seems
able to answer it. They all assume, like many commentators, that we
decide if we want an extension and the EU automatically grants it.

That's certainly been what has happened to date. If it continues, it
means though that any 'deadline' is nothing of the sort, and setting one
is absolutely meaningless.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage”
of
older right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked.

And yet they were happy to elect Boris as mayor, twice.

Post by Stephen Cole
Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:59:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit>

[Spike]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage”
of older right/leave voters. Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2016

[Rod Speed]

Post by Spike

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority
of them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next
few weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election
will be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than
even in GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage”
of older right/leave voters. Change is coming.

It always does, but its unlikely to see that fool Corbyn as PM.

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2016

But the polls show that Corbyn hasn’t got a hope in hell of being PM
currently.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:02:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

But

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile Australian pest? LOL

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

If you’d attended a proper Uni, you’d know why this happens at this time of
year.

Hint: students go off to Uni soon. They register to vote in their Uni town.
They can even be registered in two places, provided they only vote in one.
As can those with second homes ;-)

Why is anyone over 18 not already registered, it is a legal requirement.

A few may have a valid reason but hardly a significant number.

Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

[Jim]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:23:37 +0000 (UTC)

Post by Brian Reay
Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

Tell us your thoughts on the mathematics of rowlocks, Brian.

[Brian Gaff]

Where is my tinfoil hat. I feel an alien invasion coming on.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Jim
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 22:23:37 +0000 (UTC)

Post by Brian Reay
Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

Tell us your thoughts on the mathematics of rowlocks, Brian.

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

If you’d attended a proper Uni, you’d know why this happens at this time of
year.
Hint: students go off to Uni soon. They register to vote in their Uni town.
They can even be registered in two places, provided they only vote in one.
As can those with second homes ;-)
Why is anyone over 18 not already registered, it is a legal requirement.
A few may have a valid reason but hardly a significant number.
Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

Oh, Brian. You really are a reactionary little fuckwit, eh? Hint; the
comparative data is online, OM. You really should get your facts straight
before you shit the bed like this. HTH. YFI.

[Spike]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters. Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

If you’d attended a proper Uni, you’d know why this happens at this time of
year.
Hint: students go off to Uni soon. They register to vote in their Uni town.
They can even be registered in two places, provided they only vote in one.
As can those with second homes ;-)
Why is anyone over 18 not already registered, it is a legal requirement.
A few may have a valid reason but hardly a significant number.
Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

"Table 1 shows the 10 areas that experienced the greatest percentage
increases in parliamentary electors between 2015 and 2016.

Several of the areas in the top 10 (Cardiff Central, Lancaster and
Fleetwood, Leeds Central, Lewisham, Deptford and Sheffield Central) are
home to large numbers of students or are urban areas that are likely to
experience high levels of population churn."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2016

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

If you’d attended a proper Uni, you’d know why this happens at this time of
year.
Hint: students go off to Uni soon. They register to vote in their Uni town.
They can even be registered in two places, provided they only vote in one.
As can those with second homes ;-)

One can vote in two [or more] local elections in different places, however voting twice in a General Election is a criminal offence.

Post by Brian Reay
Why is anyone over 18 not already registered, it is a legal requirement.

Not any more it isn't.

Post by Brian Reay
A few may have a valid reason but hardly a significant number.

Quite apart from that the main reason is that the annual registration is in August, which means most new students (~400k) miss it at Uni' and have to go through rolling registration, which is more bother.

Their parents often don't put them on, because although just turned 18, they know they will be leaving home very soon, if they have not already done so.

Post by Brian Reay
Still, you only did Intermediate Maths so the sums are probably beyond you.

[Vidcapper]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

Lets examine that :

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.

Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.

You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.

Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

It’s ok, Brian. I know you’re very upset about how Brexit is panning out
and how badly your far right chums in Parliament are doing but console
yourself with the knowledge that the next generation are going to really
enjoy spending the proceeds of the Land Value Tax that Comrade Corbyn’s
going to levy on you, OM.

LOL!

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

It’s ok, Brian. I know you’re very upset about how Brexit is panning out
and how badly your far right chums in Parliament are doing but console
yourself with the knowledge that the next generation are going to really
enjoy spending the proceeds of the Land Value Tax that Comrade Corbyn’s
going to levy on you, OM.
LOL!

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

It’s ok, Brian. I know you’re very upset about how Brexit is panning out
and how badly your far right chums in Parliament are doing but console
yourself with the knowledge that the next generation are going to really
enjoy spending the proceeds of the Land Value Tax that Comrade Corbyn’s
going to levy on you, OM.
LOL!

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626 constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees, disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

It’s ok, Brian. I know you’re very upset about how Brexit is panning out
and how badly your far right chums in Parliament are doing but console
yourself with the knowledge that the next generation are going to really
enjoy spending the proceeds of the Land Value Tax that Comrade Corbyn’s
going to levy on you, OM.
LOL!

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

....in the 70's labour taxed us all until out pips squeaked......when
maggie got in income tax went down.....but tax on goods went up......so
who did that benefit?.....those with high incomes....you can only buy so
much and their income tax went down so the rich were beter off and the
poor were hammered.....just the way I see it.....

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.

150k you say, but young voters tend to have low turnout, being generous,
say 60%, so only 90k actual votes - spread across 626
constituencies,
that's less than 150 each.
Then, not all of them will vote Labour - say 2/3rds which leaves Labour
with a net benefit of just 50 votes. Just 8 seats were won by that
margin in 2017, and only 2 of those were Tory, so that 150k really won't
make much difference at all...

We’ll see. The broad feeling amongst the newly-of-voting-age group seems to
be one of quite passionate politicisation, due to growing up through Tory
austerity, suffering under colossal university fees,
disenfranchisement wrt
Brexit vote, fear at environmental collapse, and so on. These kids are
angry and now they’ve got the vote we should expect them to use it.

ROTFL.
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.
Where do you think the Spikes and Gareths of the world come from?

It’s ok, Brian. I know you’re very upset about how Brexit is panning out
and how badly your far right chums in Parliament are doing but console
yourself with the knowledge that the next generation are going to really
enjoy spending the proceeds of the Land Value Tax that Comrade Corbyn’s
going to levy on you, OM.
LOL!

that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

....in the 70's labour taxed us all until out pips squeaked......when
maggie got in income tax went down.....but tax on goods went up......so
who did that benefit?.....those with high incomes....you can only buy so
much and their income tax went down so the rich were beter off and the
poor were hammered.....just the way I see it.....

so am I right or am I right ? ......

[Vidcapper]

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...

[Spike]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...

Cole has never yet managed to grasp that Labour governments 'come after'
everyone, especially the poor - but he was born after such interesting
times as the Winter of Discontent and has turned a blind eye to Blair's
multiple Middle-East wars of aggrandisement.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Stephen Cole

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
that is all the know how to do...tax and spend on layabouts ....

It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re going to
redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

AS always that sounds very nice, until it's *you* they come after...

cole will never make that much to be bothered.....

[Joe]

On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re
going to redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx

Oh yes, just like he completely forgot to mention social class.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

No mention of wealth creation anyehere in Marx

Oh yes, just like he completely forgot to mention social class.

He was too ‘busy’ with his servant.

How does a Marxist justify not only having a servant but taking advantage
of her, to use a polite phrase?

Rather like the Russian leaders and their Dachas and, nearer to home, John
McDonald and his two houses, Scargill still being housed by the miners,
......

I suppose it is no different to someone who tries to pretend he isn’t a
racist having supported special rules to prevent those with Asian names
getting a job.


Meanwhile, I see Boris has (unsurprisingly) caught you all napping. It is a
pity he doesn’t read some of the tripe posted by the Remainers on here,
he’d find it hilarious.

[Rambo]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

Unfortunately the works of Karl Marx are not published in the Sun or
the Daily Mail. The masses believe what they are told by the
capitalists.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Rambo

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

It's called "redistribution of wealth", Jim. Specifically, we're
going to redistribute Brian's wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

On the contrary, it very frequently does. Have you, for instance, read
the seminal works of Karl Marx on the subject?

Unfortunately the works of Karl Marx are not published in the Sun or
the Daily Mail. The masses believe what they are told by the
capitalists.

And the psedo intellectals believe in what they are told by te radical
,arxists, who always lie.
Marxs view of production is completely invalidated by the 20th century
rise of automated production.
He saw wealth as ultimately produced by human labour. It isn't. Today
its produced by a few clever people designing machines that run on
fossil fuel that have totally replaced labour.

At a stroke Marxism has becime totally and utterly irrelevant along with
the so called working class it purported to represent.

Which is why socialism has been modified and adapted to appeal to the
people who think they are smart - the technicians of the world, and
given a moral ringe to appeal to women and feminized men.
--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On 6 Sep 2019 08:32:24 GMT

Post by Stephen Cole
It’s called “redistribution of wealth”, Jim. Specifically, we’re
going to redistribute Brian’s wealth, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Marx simply treats it as if it is just 'there'

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

[Joe]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Tony Blair is not a socialist, Brian. HTH.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.

And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes for
years.

[Brian Reay]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that
problem by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.
And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes for
years.

It is the ideal refuge for the underachievers. They have someone to
blame for their predicament and are promised handouts, all without
having to work.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it
is only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that
problem by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.
And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes
for years.

It is the ideal refuge for the underachievers. They have someone to
blame for their predicament and are promised handouts, all without
having to work.

And are told they are heroic victims,

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Socialism and the Left are pure hypocrisy. The only real skill a
socialist has is lying.
And they have conned the lower classes and the lower middle classes for
years.

But not the upper classes such as you?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Socialists have a 'blind eye' when it comes to their own wealth, it is
only when others have money they have a problem. They solve that problem
by grabbing it by what ever means they can.

Seems you were a teacher? Care to tell us how your salary compared under
say the Thatcher administration and the Blair one?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but not
wealth creation.

Just like Boris then?

But good to know you think only those who actually make things, like the
workers, should be wealthy. Or am I missing something?

[Joe]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 13:02:16 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Joe
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 13:41:19 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
Why does the Left never talk about *creating* wealth?

Because it hasn't a clue how to do it.

Thought you objected to Blair being so wealthy?

How much of it did he create? As far as I can see, he just persuades
others to hand over their wealth to him. A talent, certainly, but
not wealth creation.

Just like Boris then?
But good to know you think only those who actually make things, like
the workers, should be wealthy. Or am I missing something?

I don't know. Try quoting the part where I said that, and I'll let you
know.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

Post by Brian Reay
You are describing your political views, ie those of a lazy under achiever
who thinks the world owes him a living.
Not everyone thinks like that, not even every young person. True, those who
have been dragged out of school to festivals etc and tainted by their
parents will turn out as failures but their are others who will go on and
succeed. There have always been wasters like you. There always will be.

quality put down....tee hee

[Tufnell Park]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

There's nothing new in that, you always get new voters registering when
an election is pending.

Older people are usually already registered.

Simples!

[Spike]

Post by Tufnell Park

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

There's nothing new in that, you always get new voters registering when
an election is pending. Older people are usually already registered. Simples!

The surge in voter registrations in 2016 didn't help Comrade Cole's
Cause either:

"The total number of UK parliamentary electors increased by just over 1
million (2.3%) between December 2015 and December 2016, this partly
reflects high levels of public engagement with the EU referendum."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2016

[Tufnell Park]

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the “natural wastage” of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris’ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Not all of the new registrants will be 'left leaning' by any means. This
is just a myth propounded by Remainers.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Tufnell Park

Post by Stephen Cole
150,000 people have registered to vote since Monday, with the majority of
them being young (under 45s). So, if that keeps up through the next few
weeks, the demographics at the next (very imminent) general election will
be somewhat more considerably left-leaning and remain-leaning than even in
GE2017, particularly so when you factor in the ”natural wastage• of older
right/leave voters.
Looks like Boris‘ goose is cooked. Change is coming.

Not all of the new registrants will be 'left leaning' by any means. This
is just a myth propounded by Remainers.

Very true, given how many kids Rees-Mogg has.