General election 2019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Sure the (Tory) press coverage is over the top, but it's a serious issue which hasn't been well handled by the Labour leadership, so it's inevitable that Corbyn and Labour are going to be slaughtered for it. At least there is some basis in truth for this criticism, unlike most of the nonsense being pumped out by Johnson & cronies, so it's a kind of silver bullet for them.

"Affected". :wink:

---

I was struggling with that one, thanks. Never sure which one to use.

Corbyn could have handled it better, it a got a bit Dave Spart, but the way it is presented on the media he's Hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

With some senior figures campaigning to remain and against the deal they have just negotiated.

Perfectly clear.

---

Not too different from the position of Harold Wilson's government in the first referendum in 1975, though, so not sure why Labour should be getting vilified for it this time round (other than that the opposing party this time is full of single-issue fanatics, which it wasn't then).

https://mobile.twitter.com/Manufactu...64837345353728

Johnson had to have been at least 4 or 5 glasses into the night by this point, Shirley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataplana

I would rather that the debate was about Labours wealth creation policy, or pensions. I question why this issue which affects very few electors, and which is subject to dispute within the Jewish community, is such a prominent election issue.

The treatment of gay people in Northern Ireland, or WASPI women could be said to be more important but we focus on this. I think it is being given more attentii than it merits.

---

Whenever you hear about WW2 you will always hear about the mistreatment of Jewish people (and rightfully so). However, you almost never hear a thing about the way the Japanese treated war prisoners, which was utterly horrific. Perhaps the hushing up of it in the history books was all part and partial of their little deal with the US? You also hear very little about the way communists were treated and the huge influence they had on the overall outcome of the war.

The full focus is on Jewish people now, as if their lives somehow matter more than anybody elses. This in my view is by design. It's being used as a beating stick against anybody who speaks out about the agenda of the Israeli state and the strong media and political influences they have over other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

Whenever you hear about WW2 you will always hear about the mistreatment of Jewish people (and rightfully so). However, you almost never hear a thing about the way the Japanese treated war prisoners, which was utterly horrific. Perhaps the hushing up of it in the history books was all part and partial of their little deal with the US? You also hear very little about the way communists were treated and the huge influence they had on the overall outcome of the war.

The full focus is on Jewish people now, as if their lives somehow matter more than anybody elses. This in my view is by design. It's being used as a beating stick against anybody who speaks out about the agenda of the Israeli state and the strong media and political influences they have over other countries.

---

Think if you lived Asia you would hear a lot more about Japanese atrocities.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Think if you lived Asia you would hear a lot more about Japanese atrocities.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Of course. But it's not any less vital to our history than the way Jewish people were treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

Of course. But it's not any less vital to our history than the way Jewish people were treated.

---

You obviously feel the shouldn’t make such a big deal about it. Fair enough. Each to their own and all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

Of course. But it's not any less vital to our history than the way Jewish people were treated.

---

I agree, the story has become that WW2 often seems to be about the Holocaust.

I'd expect most school kids to know about Anne Frank, but would be surprised if many of them know about Clydebank, or Coventry .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You obviously feel the shouldn’t make such a big deal about it. Fair enough. Each to their own and all that.

---

That's clearly not what I said. I just don't believe one set of lives matter more than others. Perhaps you do though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

That's clearly not what I said. I just don't believe one set of lives matter more than others. Perhaps you do though?

---

I don’t know of any other religious group who were singled out for mass execution on such a scale that they needed to industrialise the killing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First .Net forces Eddie May to go with two up front and now it forces the Greens to stand down against Pete Wishart, there's no stopping us :agree::greengrin

https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/stat...60701709291520

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I don’t know of any other religious group who were singled out for mass execution on such a scale that they needed to industrialise the killing?

---

Is it only the deaths of religious groups that matter? :confused: What about the millions of Chinese that suffered at the hands of the Japanese? (and believe me, it was very much industrialised).

Sometimes I think people aren't even aware of the shocking things that went on beyond Germany during that period. It shows an incredible level of ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I don’t know of any other religious group who were singled out for mass execution on such a scale that they needed to industrialise the killing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Although the residents of Dresden can point to how they were killed industrially too. He's got a point, why does one group get so much of the attention in documentaries etc?

If you add up all the casualties, including Soviet citizens, you can see there are quite a few large groups who died in WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

First .Net forces Eddie May to go with two up front and now it forces the Greens to stand down against Pete Wishart, there's no stopping us :agree::greengrin

https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/stat...60701709291520

---

Cheers, the proposed candidate is a total carcrash IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataplana

Although the residents of Dresden can point to how they were killed industrially too. He's got a point, why does one group get so much of the attention in documentaries etc?

If you add up all the casualties, including Soviet citizens, you can see there are quite a few large groups who died in WW2.

---

I’m not diminishing any of the other casualties during the war but the holocaust was an attempted genocide and was the most brutal. It’s not that those lives were worth more than others, just that the purpose of those killings was the complete extermination of the Jews.
As horrible as Dresden was, our aim was not the complete genocide of the German people but just to bring down the regime. I’m not defending the bombing of Dresden though, just saying it’s different from mass extermination of a people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataplana

I was struggling with that one, thanks. Never sure which one to use.

Corbyn could have handled it better, it a got a bit Dave Spart, but the way it is presented on the media he's Hitler.

---

Corbyn's been pretty quick to hang this guy out to dry despite the evidence being somewhat sketchy. You'd think he'd at least wait until a full investigation had taken place. Just shows you how desperate Labour are to stifle this issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50360863

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’m not diminishing any of the other casualties during the war but the holocaust was an attempted genocide and was the most brutal. It’s not that those lives were worth more than others, just that the purpose of those killings was the complete extermination of the Jews.
As horrible as Dresden was, our aim was not the complete genocide of the German people but just to bring down the regime. I’m not defending the bombing of Dresden though, just saying it’s different from mass extermination of a people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It is, and I suspect we are both agreed, it was one aspect of the war, and the deaths caused by that *******.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

Is it only the deaths of religious groups that matter? :confused: What about the millions of Chinese that suffered at the hands of the Japanese? (and believe me, it was very much industrialised).

Sometimes I think people aren't even aware of the shocking things that went on beyond Germany during that period. It shows an incredible level of ignorance.

---

Exactly. Peterhead was bombed 28 times during WW2, but do we ever hear about a Bluemoggeners' Memorial Day? No we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Exactly. Peterhead was bombed 28 times during WW2, but do we ever hear about a Bluemoggeners' Memorial Day? No we don't.

---

More bombs were dropped on Malta than London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

First .Net forces Eddie May to go with two up front and now it forces the Greens to stand down against Pete Wishart, there's no stopping us :agree::greengrin

https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/stat...60701709291520

---

Saw that earlier on Twitter. Common sense from the Greens. They are back as my second vote again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

https://mobile.twitter.com/Manufactu...64837345353728

Johnson had to have been at least 4 or 5 glasses into the night by this point, Shirley?

---

Nope... that's him stone cold. Frightening, isn't it?

... and what is it with the orchestra conducting arm waves? Get's right on my thrupennies. It's always the rabble-rousers like Trump... and Hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

he's going to be our next first minister








source: richard leonard

---

And our old friend Tornadoes. 😉

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomJHarpe...79348851314688

The Russian Tory donors story looks to be heating up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Exactly. Peterhead was bombed 28 times during WW2, but do we ever hear about a Bluemoggeners' Memorial Day? No we don't.

---

“First they came for the Blue Tooners, and I did not speak out.......” :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomJHarpe...79348851314688

The Russian Tory donors story looks to be heating up.

---

Potential dynamite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Cheers, the proposed candidate is a total carcrash IMHO

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Potential dynamite.

---

Looks like this story is beginning to gain traction and pressure will build on Boris to publish the report. Are things about to go t1ts up for the tories in this election campaign I wonder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes

Looks like this story is beginning to gain traction and pressure will build on Boris to publish the report. Are things about to go t1ts up for the tories in this election campaign I wonder?

---

It all feels like it's by design. Are the tories trying to lose this election? They must have surely known before the call for an election that there was a good chance this would crop up? Could the economy be heading to **** and they're trying to jump ship before it does? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

It all feels like it's by design. Are the tories trying to lose this election? They must have surely known before the call for an election that there was a good chance this would crop up? Could the economy be heading to **** and they're trying to jump ship before it does? :confused:

---

Depends if releasing it is worse than the flack they take for not releasing it? I think it only becomes a big issue if it gets leaked. If not it will fizzle out by the end of this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another tactical voting website, this time run by Gina Miller and it includes Scotland.
https://www.remainunited.org/
It correctly says ‘no recommendation’ for my Edin West constituency so a good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Another tactical voting website, this time run by Gina Miller and it includes Scotland.
https://www.remainunited.org/
It correctly says ‘no recommendation’ for my Edin West constituency so a good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

"Postcode could not be matched" - don't agree with all their policies but if it helps stop Brexit they'll get my vote. :aok:

Sanjir Javid talking more about labours manifesto than his own on Andrew Marr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

Sanjir Javid talking more about labours manifesto than his own on Andrew Marr.

---

That’s the manifesto that hasn’t been published yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

That’s the manifesto that hasn’t been published yet.

---

The one the Tories claim is going to cost £650,000,000 a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

Sanjir Javid talking more about labours manifesto than his own on Andrew Marr.

---

That guy gives me the creeps. He reminds me of "The Hood" in Thunderbirds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

It all feels like it's by design. Are the tories trying to lose this election? They must have surely known before the call for an election that there was a good chance this would crop up? Could the economy be heading to **** and they're trying to jump ship before it does? :confused:

---

Agree with you it does have that feel about it. Shouldn't matter though as independence is probably closer than its ever been before. The last referendum was an expected loss but I don't think it will be that way next time around. Quite possibly the rest of the UK are content to cut Scotland loose and let it go its own way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

The one the Tories claim is going to cost £650,000,000 a day.

---

The very one. Meanwhile a Tory minister on Sky refuses to reveal their own spending plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Another tactical voting website, this time run by Gina Miller and it includes Scotland.
https://www.remainunited.org/
It correctly says ‘no recommendation’ for my Edin West constituency so a good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes, that one seems better.

The other one recommended voting LD in my constituency, but Labour were clear 2nd last time.

Labour it is.

This election is not going to anywhere as clear cut as the so called experts are saying. In Scotland we’ve got the independence and Brexit which could sway people away from their normal voting intentions. In England and Wales I think lots of seats will change hands because of Brexit and the personalities of the leaders. I think we will end up with a hung parliament, which in itself will be interesting. If the snp hold the balance of power and they’ve already ruled out supporting BJ that does not give them a strong hand to get a deal with JC.

If Corbyn gets into number 10 then telling the SNP that a second referendum can take place if the majority of Scots vote for pro independence parties in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary election this would be a good compromise. Labour would have two years to prove their worth in government and the Scottish people could decide the independence question in 2022.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The very one. Meanwhile a Tory minister on Sky refuses to reveal their own spending plans.

---

Javid was the same. He refused to reveal any detail about their own costings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataplana

That guy gives me the creeps. He reminds me of "The Hood" in Thunderbirds.

---

Aw ****! That’s why I find him so weird!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

This election is not going to anywhere as clear cut as the so called experts are saying. In Scotland we’ve got the independence and Brexit which could sway people away from their normal voting intentions. In England and Wales I think lots of seats will change hands because of Brexit and the personalities of the leaders. I think we will end up with a hung parliament, which in itself will be interesting. If the snp hold the balance of power and they’ve already ruled out supporting BJ that does not give them a strong hand to get a deal with JC.

If Corbyn gets into number 10 then telling the SNP that a second referendum can take place if the majority of Scots vote for pro independence parties in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary election this would be a good compromise. Labour would have two years to prove their worth in government and the Scottish people could decide the independence question in 2022.

---

During an election campaign, you can ignore any any pledges about ruling out working without other parties.

It'll be a case of who blinks first should that situation arise.

The SNP will deal with the Tories if they're the only party which guarantees them Indyref 2.

Sure, they'd be keeping them in power, but that won't stop people in Scotland voting Yes. In fact, the prospect of continuing with Diana as PM, would shore up the pro-indy vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

This election is not going to anywhere as clear cut as the so called experts are saying. In Scotland we’ve got the independence and Brexit which could sway people away from their normal voting intentions. In England and Wales I think lots of seats will change hands because of Brexit and the personalities of the leaders. I think we will end up with a hung parliament, which in itself will be interesting. If the snp hold the balance of power and they’ve already ruled out supporting BJ that does not give them a strong hand to get a deal with JC.

If Corbyn gets into number 10 then telling the SNP that a second referendum can take place if the majority of Scots vote for pro independence parties in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary election this would be a good compromise. Labour would have two years to prove their worth in government and the Scottish people could decide the independence question in 2022.

---

There is no way the SNP would accept that from Corbyn. [emoji23]
The SNP have a mandate now and if Labour want power then they will have to allow the referendum and a whole lot more. There will be more powers coming to holyrood no matter what.
And Labour will take the deal because why wouldn’t they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is no way the SNP would accept that from Corbyn. [emoji23]
The SNP have a mandate now and if Labour want power then they will have to allow the referendum and a whole lot more. There will be more powers coming to holyrood no matter what.
And Labour will take the deal because why wouldn’t they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Why would Labour offer a referendum now? The SNP will have a choice back Corbyn or Johnston is back in power with no chance of a referendum. For the record I believe it should the a Scottish Parliament that decides when and if there should be a second once in a generation referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is no way the SNP would accept that from Corbyn. [emoji23]
The SNP have a mandate now and if Labour want power then they will have to allow the referendum and a whole lot more. There will be more powers coming to holyrood no matter what.
And Labour will take the deal because why wouldn’t they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree.

Its looking as if its going to be either a labour led pact of parties or a tory one. If its labour and the snp then a soon to be referendum will certainly be part of the package and independence will win it. Even a tory led one would very probably break apart sooner or later. Independence appears very close indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Why would Labour offer a referendum now? The SNP will have a choice back Corbyn or Johnston is back in power with no chance of a referendum. For the record I believe it should the a Scottish Parliament that decides when and if there should be a second once in a generation referendum.

---

I love the way people pick and choose which promises they remember. The once in a generation statement came out at the same time we were told a no vote was the only way to guarantee EU membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataplana

I love the way people pick and choose which promises they remember. The once in a generation statement came out at the same time we were told a no vote was the only way to guarantee EU membership.

---

The difference being we were never told it was a once in a generation thing before we voted. That is a much repeated lie. Alex Salmond expressed a personal opinion about it probably being a once in a generation thing which has been taken completely taken out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The difference being we were never told it was a once in a generation thing before we voted. That is a much repeated lie. Alex Salmond expressed a personal opinion about it probably being a once in a generation thing which has been taken completely taken out of context.

---

You could say the same things about The Vow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The difference being we were never told it was a once in a generation thing before we voted. That is a much repeated lie. Alex Salmond expressed a personal opinion about it probably being a once in a generation thing which has been taken completely taken out of context.

---

Here is what Salmond said to Andrew Marr ahead of the 2014 vote:

When pressed by Marr on whether he would attempt to bring back another referendum should the no vote prevail, Scotland's First Minister said that would not occur within "this political generation". Asked to define what he meant by that, Salmond said: "If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.

"However, in my opinion this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

Based on that, and the fact those words came from the man who was First Minister for Scotland at the time, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Why would Labour offer a referendum now? The SNP will have a choice back Corbyn or Johnston is back in power with no chance of a referendum. For the record I believe it should the a Scottish Parliament that decides when and if there should be a second once in a generation referendum.

---

'Why Sturgeon's indyref pact with Corbyn will never come to pass':

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...pass-1-5042892

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge

During an election campaign, you can ignore any any pledges about ruling out working without other parties.

It'll be a case of who blinks first should that situation arise.

The SNP will deal with the Tories if they're the only party which guarantees them Indyref 2.

Sure, they'd be keeping them in power, but that won't stop people in Scotland voting Yes. In fact, the prospect of continuing with Diana as PM, would shore up the pro-indy vote.

---

Hard to believe that scenario will come to pass, though I guess the SNP helped to usher Thatcher into power so there's a precedent there :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Hard to believe that scenario will come to pass, though I guess the SNP helped to usher Thatcher into power so there's a precedent there :wink:

---

It is hard to see that happening, but my point is that because it's possible, Labour won't be able to just simply blank the SNP's request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Here is what Salmond said to Andrew Marr ahead of the 2014 vote:

When pressed by Marr on whether he would attempt to bring back another referendum should the no vote prevail, Scotland's First Minister said that would not occur within "this political generation". Asked to define what he meant by that, Salmond said: "If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.

"However, in my opinion this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

Based on that, and the fact those words came from the man who was First Minister for Scotland at the time, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view.

---

As with everything on Hibs.Net it's all about opinions. Alex salmond gave his opinion in an interview.

There is an alternative definition of a political generation and that is a group of similar aged people who share political experiences.

http://oer2go.org/mods/en-boundless/www.boundless.com/political-science/definition/political-generation/index.html


Myself, I think a political generation is defined as the length of a political administration, in other words the length of a parliament. We are about to have our 3rd UK parliament since Alex Salmond referred to the once in a generation event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

Nope... that's him stone cold. Frightening, isn't it?

... and what is it with the orchestra conducting arm waves? Get's right on my thrupennies. It's always the rabble-rousers like Trump... and Hitler.

---

I note that it's Labour who are borrowing from the Trump playbook today, denouncing Tory criticism of their spending plans as "fake news".

Pre 2014: Fat Eck doesn't speak for us!

Post 2014: Salmond is the almighty Oracle who's opinion is law.

Labour gaining on the Tories in the polls, though still miles behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

Labour gaining on the Tories in the polls, though still miles behind.

---

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6326a5dfc9.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6326a5dfc9.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

And a happy Sunday to you too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

And a happy Sunday to you too.

---

Sorry.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6326a5dfc9.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

See, this is why I hate FPTP. If your vote proportion goes down you shouldn't get loads more seats just because the opposition are split. If you get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the seats, period. It's a ****ing joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

See, this is why I hate FPTP. If your vote proportion goes down you shouldn't get loads more seats just because the opposition are split. If you get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the seats, period. It's a ****ing joke.

---

Although, the snp percentage is up 0.1 and they get 13 more seats. What's not to like 😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

'Why Sturgeon's indyref pact with Corbyn will never come to pass':

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...pass-1-5042892

---

If the SNP become king makers then Corbyn would sell his left bollock to become PM, he'd marinate it in a whisky sauce before deep frying it and serving it up to Sturgeon on a silver platter if it got him into number 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

See, this is why I hate FPTP. If your vote proportion goes down you shouldn't get loads more seats just because the opposition are split. If you get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the seats, period. It's a ****ing joke.

---

Each election is local though. In a system where some parties are very local, fptp works best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

If the SNP become king makers then Corbyn would sell his left bollock to become PM, he'd marinate it in a whisky sauce before deep frying it and serving it up to Sturgeon on a silver platter if it got him into number 10.

---

I suspect Sturgeon would be looking for something different in exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

See, this is why I hate FPTP. If your vote proportion goes down you shouldn't get loads more seats just because the opposition are split. If you get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the seats, period. It's a ****ing joke.

---

I agree, although I doubt SNP voters would if you recall that in the 2015 election they won 56 seats on the back of just 4.1 per cent of the vote. UKIP conversely won just one seat despite gaining 12.6% of the vote (nearly 4 million votes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Here is what Salmond said to Andrew Marr ahead of the 2014 vote:

When pressed by Marr on whether he would attempt to bring back another referendum should the no vote prevail, Scotland's First Minister said that would not occur within "this political generation". Asked to define what he meant by that, Salmond said: "If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.

"However, in my opinion this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

Based on that, and the fact those words came from the man who was First Minister for Scotland at the time, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view.

---

Or unless there is a substantial material change in circumstances. Sorry I can't do big giant letters for emphasis. Brexit and leaving the EU, something we were promised would not happen if we remained part of the union. Massive material change in circumstances and you well know that. Remember all the promises of how if you want to remain in Europe vote no. Well how has that worked out for everyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

I agree, although I doubt SNP voters would if you recall that in the 2015 election they won 56 seats on the back of just 4.1 per cent of the vote. UKIP conversely won just one seat despite gaining 12.6% of the vote (nearly 4 million votes).

---

I'm an SNP voter and I'd gladly sacrifice some seats in the Commons for an end to winner-takes-all politics. The party themselves support this too.

25 seats means a lot more than 50 if no party is guaranteed a majority by virtue of winning the most votes. It means people will have to work together and compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

I note that it's Labour who are borrowing from the Trump playbook today, denouncing Tory criticism of their spending plans as "fake news".

---

Because it is fake news. Labour haven’t published their spending plans yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

Or unless there is a substantial material change in circumstances. Sorry I can't do big giant letters for emphasis. Brexit and leaving the EU, something we were promised would not happen if we remained part of the union. Massive material change in circumstances and you well know that. Remember all the promises of how if you want to remain in Europe vote no. Well how has that worked out for everyone?

---

It's amazing how often this is ignored (or swept under the carpet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Here is what Salmond said to Andrew Marr ahead of the 2014 vote:

When pressed by Marr on whether he would attempt to bring back another referendum should the no vote prevail, Scotland's First Minister said that would not occur within "this political generation". Asked to define what he meant by that, Salmond said: "If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.

"However, in my opinion this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

Based on that, and the fact those words came from the man who was First Minister for Scotland at the time, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view.

---

No. It's unionists who feel entitled to see that as the accepted view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Here is what Salmond said to Andrew Marr ahead of the 2014 vote:

When pressed by Marr on whether he would attempt to bring back another referendum should the no vote prevail, Scotland's First Minister said that would not occur within "this political generation". Asked to define what he meant by that, Salmond said: "If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland - there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation.

"However, in my opinion this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

Based on that, and the fact those words came from the man who was First Minister for Scotland at the time, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view.

---

I think that since the former PM said that by voting NO Scotland would stay in the EU, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view as well. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://mobile.twitter.com/Graeme252...39882842169346

The game's a bogey in Wales...

Question: "What is it about Johnson that makes you think he will succeed?"

Answer: "he's been proven to be a liar"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

See, this is why I hate FPTP. If your vote proportion goes down you shouldn't get loads more seats just because the opposition are split. If you get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the seats, period. It's a ****ing joke.

---

Also, Brexit Party get 7.8% of the vote, no seats.
SNP 3.2% of the vote (half the Brexit Party votes) they get 48 seats.

Utterly ridiculous.

J

Brexit Party getting no seats on 7.8% of the vote is actually a ringing endorsement of fptp!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

https://mobile.twitter.com/Graeme252...39882842169346

The game's a bogey in Wales...

Question: "What is it about Johnson that makes you think he will succeed?"

Answer: "he's been proven to be a liar"

---

It's complete airheads like that who will return a Tory majority. It's just a fail on so many levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think that since the former PM said that by voting NO Scotland would stay in the EU, I think the electorate were entitled to see that as the accepted view as well. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't disagree. However, the count had barely concluded in the Brexit referendum before Sturgeon launched fresh plans for an independence bid, doubtless convinced that Scotland would be so outraged that we'd all but rise up and storm Westminster. Instead the SNP ended up losing a hefty chunk of seats at the next election and Sturgeon was forced to think again. Essentially this oft-quoted 'lie' about staying in the EU wasn't the burning issue among the Scottish electorate that she'd assumed it to be. Of course the subsequent years of Brexit chaos have enabled the SNP to grasp this cudgel again in a bit to browbeat everyone into thinking 'the people of Scotland' are on a war footing about Brexit, overlooking the fact that over a million Scottish voters (including SNP supporters) actually voted to leave the EU. A minority yes, but only a few per cent less than the minority who voted for Scottish independence - and you could never say the SNP overlook the latter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquall

https://mobile.twitter.com/Graeme252...39882842169346

The game's a bogey in Wales...

Question: "What is it about Johnson that makes you think he will succeed?"

Answer: "he's been proven to be a liar"

---

She also goes on to say he has 'balls of steel' and that as a long-time Labour voter she's now '100% Conservative'. Might not be the sharpest analysis but if that's the perception ordinary voters there have of his 'get Brexit done' policy compared to Corbyn's lack of a policy voters can understand then Johnson's on the right lines.

Vaz brings what had been an impressive political career to an end in rather sorry fashion:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50369905

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

Also, Brexit Party get 7.8% of the vote, no seats.
SNP 3.2% of the vote (half the Brexit Party votes) they get 48 seats.

Utterly ridiculous.

J

---

If Brexit Party targeted just 53 seats, like the SNP, instead of 600 odd, they might end up with a greater number of seats than zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

I don't disagree. However, the count had barely concluded in the Brexit referendum before Sturgeon launched fresh plans for an independence bid, doubtless convinced that Scotland would be so outraged that we'd all but rise up and storm Westminster. Instead the SNP ended up losing a hefty chunk of seats at the next election and Sturgeon was forced to think again. Essentially this oft-quoted 'lie' about staying in the EU wasn't the burning issue among the Scottish electorate that she'd assumed it to be. Of course the subsequent years of Brexit chaos have enabled the SNP to grasp this cudgel again in a bit to browbeat everyone into thinking 'the people of Scotland' are on a war footing about Brexit, overlooking the fact that over a million Scottish voters (including SNP supporters) actually voted to leave the EU. A minority yes, but only a few per cent less than the minority who voted for Scottish independence - and you could never say the SNP overlook the latter!

---

A few percent less than the minority who voted for Scottish independence

That would be your 1 million leave voters and I'll give you the 1.6 million who voted for independence.

Who do you think has more of a shout to be heard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

Also, Brexit Party get 7.8% of the vote, no seats.
SNP 3.2% of the vote (half the Brexit Party votes) they get 48 seats.

Utterly ridiculous.

J

---

It really isn't. If that 7.8% of the UK vote was focused in an area containing 8.4% of the UK population, UKIP would win every seat in that area.

A proportional voting system would destroy localism and what we would get is a fully centralized government. FPTP despite it's problems, is the most workable system available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

It really isn't. If that 7.8% of the UK vote was focused in an area containing 8.4% of the UK population, UKIP would win every seat in that area.

A proportional voting system would destroy localism and what we would get is a fully centralized government. FPTP despite it's problems, is the most workable system available.

---

It's inherently unfair. No matter the case that can be made to defend it, first past the post is incredibly unjust and a form of gerrymandering.

Keith Vaz is the latest MP to announce he is stepping down at the forthcoming election. Rent boys, cocaine, poppers then lying to a Commons select committee about what he was up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

It's inherently unfair. No matter the case that can be made to defend it, first past the post is incredibly unjust and a form of gerrymandering.

---

I never said it was fair. But proportional voting (although it appears fair at first glance) doesn't work on a national scale, at least not on it's own. We could of course have a secondary tier of MPs. MPs for local and MPs for national, but that's more tax payers money going towards what many would view as excessive bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

I never said it was fair. But proportional voting (although it appears fair at first glance) doesn't work on a national scale, at least not on it's own. We could of course have a secondary tier of MPs. MPs for local and MPs for national, but that's more tax payers money going towards what many would view as excessive bureaucracy.

---

The are a number of electoral systems available, including various forms of PR, some more proportional than others. What is undeniable is that FPTP is the least proportional system. It can't be right that parties with, for example, ten per cent of the national vote get no representation at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

The are a number of electoral systems available, including various forms of PR, some more proportional than others. What is undeniable is that FPTP is the least proportional system. It can't be right that parties with, for example, ten per cent of the national vote get no representation at all.

---

They get 10 percent of the vote, but which areas of the country are they supposed to represent if that 10% is spread out over all areas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

They get 10 percent of the vote, but which areas of the country are they supposed to represent if that 10% is spread out over all areas?

---

Look up STV as used in Ireland and N Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

They get 10 percent of the vote, but which areas of the country are they supposed to represent if that 10% is spread out over all areas?

---

There are various forms of PR, but you are right to say the more proportional the system the less constituency based it becomes. More proportional systems do weaken the link between local voters and their representative and it's a trade off. Conversely, a party with several million votes under FPTP can end up without representation in parliament. The all or nothing of FPTP can't be fair, as it can leave millions disenfranchised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

The are a number of electoral systems available, including various forms of PR, some more proportional than others. What is undeniable is that FPTP is the least proportional system. It can't be right that parties with, for example, ten per cent of the national vote get no representation at all.

---

I would say that a party with 10% of the vote can still be a success in fptp. UKIP picking up a lot less than 10% of the vote managed to fundamentally change the Tory party and achieved their primary aim of brexit.
The greens are managing to get the Lib Dem’s to stand aside in seats to help them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee

It really isn't. If that 7.8% of the UK vote was focused in an area containing 8.4% of the UK population, UKIP would win every seat in that area.

A proportional voting system would destroy localism and what we would get is a fully centralized government. FPTP despite it's problems, is the most workable system available.

---

Struggling to see how you defend against my previous point. The percentage of U.K. vote to seats is undemocratic.

Don’t get me wrong, I loathe the Brexit Party. But you can see why they feel ignored.

I get the link to constituency. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament system that has constituent and list MSPs. This would be a start.

But it really is Turkeys voting for Christmas and nothing will change soon.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

There are various forms of PR, but you are right to say the more proportional the system the less constituency based it becomes. More proportional systems do weaken the link between local voters and their representative and it's a trade off. Conversely, a party with several million votes under FPTP can end up without representation in parliament. The all or nothing of FPTP can't be fair, as it can leave millions disenfranchised.

---

Exactly, or voting tactically. I vote Labour in the European Elections (Regional PR) but have to vote Liberal Democrat in General Elections as my best opportunity to stop the Tories. It’s a two horse race.

J

Interesting reading and broken down to a level that might translate onto FPTP.

https://www.centrefortowns.org/blog/...intend-to-vote

Farage has bottled it, making it easier for the tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Farage has bottled it, making it easier for the tories.

---

That's it. We're ****ed.

Obviously a pact has been made. His knighthood will follow shortly after.
Tories will win comfortably now in England. Only independence can keep Scotland in the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ironic that the man who wants the end of the NHS, workers rights uses today to announce this. A spit in the eye for all things that our country has fought for and is good for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Obviously a pact has been made. His knighthood will follow shortly after.
Tories will win comfortably now in England. Only independence can keep Scotland in the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

A kinghthood is a possibility.

A hard, no-deal Brexit is more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diclonius

That's it. We're ****ed.

---

It's not good but it's not as bad as it might have been.

They're not standing against sitting Tory MPs but they *are* standing in seats the Tories are trying to take off Labour. It's widely thought that the Tories will lose seats to the SNP and the Libs in SW England, so to get a majority they have to make significant gains in Labour territory.

Also to the Lib Dems and SNP - this is why you don't go for an election on Boris' terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northernhibee

Also to the Lib Dems and SNP - this is why you don't go for an election on Boris' terms.

---

The SNP didn’t vote for it on Boris’s terms. That was Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk