Do you want to discuss boring politics? (67 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
The pointless petition is up to 2,116,000 now.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What does 'in spirit' mean because it sounds a bit like a catchall for anything you don't agree with
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
And obviously anything I don't agree with
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
Im sure it is ultimately an irrelevance. The debate will be interesting - will Keir even be here and will he be dismissive in that really irritating way that he has. As he has said in the past, he doesn't need to take lectures from the likes of us!!
Since when have we measured a vote against electorate rather than turnout anyway?
Why should we include the people who couldn't be bothered to vote in the democratic result? They had their chance to have a say, they chose not to.
And if you're going to use that criteria then you have to accept there was no mandate for Brexit (or for anything or anyone ever!).
Yes because 14 years of destroying the country bit by bit has all been undone in just a few months
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wonder if this dickhead was just no his way back from Westminster at the time:
www.theguardian.com
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 doors
If you read the Daily Mail then yes that's what they've done.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I can’t stand Starmer, but if we didn’t get a snap election after Trussonomics and the year of the 3 PMs, we sure aren’t getting one for Starmer being a bit shit.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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 doors
Just someone being an arsehole, should get done for driving without due care and attention. Hopefully businesses affected can claim off the tractor driver’s insurance.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I take it you agree that 52:48 IS the will of the people.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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:
My NHS employers breached my contract of employment in 2006 at the behest of Gordon Brown. My union were useless.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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:
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
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
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
Apart from the Government being unpopular, there isn’t really a case for an election. I could definitely see Labour calling an early election for a renewed mandate after 2-3 years because we’ve never seen a party get off to such a poor start with this large a majority.
It was a pointless act to begin with because in 2017 and 2019 Parliament voted to have an election
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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
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
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
National vote means nothing. You play the game to the rules at the time. Everyone’s election strategy would be wildly different in a popular vote contest over a constituency system. Under the system we have Labour won a stinking majority. You can be sad about that, heavens knows the left were for 14 odd years, but recognise you being sad isn’t a valid reason to overturn a democratic election.
Come on, you know this tune, you were playing it 2016-2024
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Tory complaints today are virtually identical to the ones in 1997.
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
I see people on twitter are moaning that Rachel Reeves expensed her subscriptions to the economist and Financial Times…
This might be the most pathetic attack yet from the right if they really are resorting to that.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
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.
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
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”
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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”
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So your argument that Labour having 20% is no mandate from the people, but 26% is fine.
And a petition with less than 5% of voters (and we can't verify all those signatories are genuine) should be enough for a discussion to have another general election.
It's all over the place. The only thing you've proved is you have an agenda.
It's a perfectly acceptable business expense.
It's not like she's asking the taxpayer to pay for a Golf Monthly subscription