26% is significantly more than 20%.26% of the electorate voted for the Tories in 2019 but you were happy for them to do 'pretty much what they want to'
These are the sourest of sour grapes I'm afraid.
And you're getting a taste (maybe more than a taste by the sounds of it!) of how the rest of us have felt for the last 14 years.
Great, you agree that there should have been no attempts to interfere with Brexit and Starmer should absolutely respect the result of the referendum - to the letter and in spirit.I agree with her there’s something not good about denigrating our democratic process
Same with trump and his fans in 2020
What does 'in spirit' mean because it sounds a bit like a catchall for anything you don't agree withGreat, you agree that there should have been no attempts to interfere with Brexit and Starmer should absolutely respect the result of the referendum - to the letter and in spirit.
6,103,056 signatories over the 6 months is the one I've just looked up.The revoke Brexit petition got like 7m signatures so presumably you lads think we should still be in the EU if petitions hold such weight.
It means, for example, not going back and renegotiating, not paying the EU any fees, not being subservient to the ECHR. The "spirit" was/ is, in my view, about being able to act as a sovereign nation.What does 'in spirit' mean because it sounds a bit like a catchall for anything you don't agree with
It's about 5% now. With best part of 6 months to go. It would be entirely possible to end up with >20% by the time the petition closes.I don't like this Labour government so far as much as the next man, but I know you like statistics about the popular mandate.
The petition has been signed by 1.66% of voters, it's an irrelevance
26% is significantly more than 20%.
Nowhere have I said I was happy for them to do pretty much what they wanted to. It could be argued that they weren't actually able to do what they wanted to.
How's this new world under Labour going? The bubbly still flowing?
Yes because 14 years of destroying the country bit by bit has all been undone in just a few months
Looks like they saw the country was on fire and threw petrol all over it instead of water.
I think you need to downgrade your expectations and look at what's happened to petitions that have reached the threshold in the past. Firstly there's no guarantee of a debate, the threshold merely means the petitions committee will consider it for a debate. They could turn round and say this is a waste of parliament's time as we know what the laws on calling a general election are.The debate will be interesting - will Keir even be here and will he be dismissive in that really irritating way that he has.
I doubt it, I think there were only a very few tractors as the police had advised them not to take them.Wonder if this dickhead was just no his way back from Westminster at the time:
Police investigate tractor that created ‘devastating’ wave in flooded UK town
Vehicle drove water into businesses in Tenbury Wells, which local people say smashed windows and opened doorswww.theguardian.com
I take it you agree that 52:48 IS the will of the people.From the producers of ‘52:48 is the will of the people’ comes a new instalment entitled ‘4.6% is a mandate’
That was very interesting actually.I think you need to downgrade your expectations and look at what's happened to petitions that have reached the threshold in the past. Firstly there's no guarantee of a debate, the threshold merely means the petitions committee will consider it for a debate. They could turn round and say this is a waste of parliament's time as we know what the laws on calling a general election are.
If they do schedule a debate it is unlikely to be in the main chamber. It will be a handful of people in a meeting room, similar to when we used to be told Coventry City were going to be debated in parliament and it would be one of our local MPs saying a few words with about 3 people in attendance.
You can go on the petitions committee site and see how it works and there's links to videos of previous debates, here's one as an example:
It wasn’t always thus though, was it? Fixed Term Parliaments Act only came in in 2011 and presumably could be repealed.I think you need to downgrade your expectations and look at what's happened to petitions that have reached the threshold in the past. Firstly there's no guarantee of a debate, the threshold merely means the petitions committee will consider it for a debate. They could turn round and say this is a waste of parliament's time as we know what the laws on calling a general election are.
If they do schedule a debate it is unlikely to be in the main chamber. It will be a handful of people in a meeting room, similar to when we used to be told Coventry City were going to be debated in parliament and it would be one of our local MPs saying a few words with about 3 people in attendance.
You can go on the petitions committee site and see how it works and there's links to videos of previous debates, here's one as an example:
It was repealed on 2022 which is why we had a guessing game of when Sunak would call an election.It wasn’t always thus though, was it? Fixed Term Parliaments Act only came in in 2011 and presumably could be repealed.
Unlikely admittedly. There is a requirement for a government response to this petition. I would imagine it will be along the lines of, fuck off plebs.
If it is, I look forward to Starmer, his chums and their clothes and spectacles being fucked off in 2029
The ultimate irony being that reform was a driving force in leaving the Dublin agreement which by no coincidence coincides with the massive hike in the numbers of crossings. It’s almost as if the smuggling gangs understood what we were voting for.Not really though as it’s likely to mean Reforms vote increasing. People’s genuine concerns about uncontrolled immigration have been ignored for years (looking at various governments actions, not words). Countries across Europe have shifted to the right because of it. If Labour aren’t seen to get a grip of it, I’d unfortunately expect similar to happen here.
26% is significantly more than 20%.
Nowhere have I said I was happy for them to do pretty much what they wanted to. It could be argued that they weren't actually able to do what they wanted to.
There isn’t really anything redeemable about this government. Only the public sector workers will be happy so far. Even so, those pay rises won’t go far if inflation creeps back up and farmer’s strikes cause increases in food prices and/or shortages.I am sure Labour will do the 5 years and then as with the Callaghan administration be cast into the wilderness as they are acting like a poor man’s Tory tribute act
Starmer and Reeves already seem confused that the electorate is openly laughing and mocking them. Starmer is high on vanity and low on resilience
It’s going badly and will get worse
There isn’t really anything redeemable about this government. Only the public sector workers will be happy so far. Even so, those pay rises won’t go far if inflation creeps back up and farmer’s strikes cause increases in food prices and/or shortages.
They were elected without any real guiding vision or detailed policies. At least Tony Blair had guiding principles for his Government when elected in 1997, for better or worst.
I see people on twitter are moaning that Rachel Reeves expensed her subscriptions to the economist and Financial Times…
I do as it happens. You’ll find years of posts of me saying on here that you have to respect the mandate, and Labour’s idea to go for a 2nd Ref vote was lunacy.I take it you agree that 52:48 IS the will of the people.
Yep “she’s got enough money to pay it herself”This might be the most pathetic attack yet from the right if they really are resorting to that.
Why does she need a subscription to The Economist? It’s not as if she is one.This might be the most pathetic attack yet from the right if they really are resorting to that.
Why does she need a subscription to The Economist? It’s not as if she is one.
Surely the question is how can she still be in a job having falsified her cv?
As Chancellor I’d be worried if she didn’t have a subscription to be honest.
If she didn’t have a subscription the argument would be “how can she be chancellor but not read about economics”
So your argument that Labour having 20% is no mandate from the people, but 26% is fine.26% is significantly more than 20%.
Nowhere have I said I was happy for them to do pretty much what they wanted to. It could be argued that they weren't actually able to do what they wanted to.
Why does she need a subscription to The Economist? It’s not as if she is one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?