0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Copps is Magic on June 27, 2016, 12:06:50 pmYou clearly don't understand the numbers.Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.The point remains.
You clearly don't understand the numbers.Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
Quote from: IDM on June 26, 2016, 08:27:03 pmAn open question - how many of those 33 million voters now feel mislead (whether in or out) due to the political rhetoric (ie lies and spin) that we always get?We have a general election every 5 years where we can vote to put right what we were lied about at the previosu election - how can we put right the lies from this referendum?And how many would vote the same again - in Boston, Worksop, Doncaster, Mansfield or any other town with large volumes of immigrants, for example.But people voting the same way again doesn't make as good a story as 'Outraged of Bristol' who is scared they might now need a VISA to visit France in five years time.
An open question - how many of those 33 million voters now feel mislead (whether in or out) due to the political rhetoric (ie lies and spin) that we always get?We have a general election every 5 years where we can vote to put right what we were lied about at the previosu election - how can we put right the lies from this referendum?
Quote from: Copps is Magic on June 27, 2016, 01:49:24 pmQuote from: Rigoglioso on June 27, 2016, 12:53:35 pmQuote from: Copps is Magic on June 27, 2016, 12:06:50 pmYou clearly don't understand the numbers.Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.The point remains.You seem to think towns like Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield have a high volume/percentage of immigration but they simply don't. Boston's is higher but still relatively lower compared to larger towns/cities. Whatever point you are trying to make after that is simply wrong.So why did all these towns vote 'leave' in their droves?
Quote from: Rigoglioso on June 27, 2016, 12:53:35 pmQuote from: Copps is Magic on June 27, 2016, 12:06:50 pmYou clearly don't understand the numbers.Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.The point remains.You seem to think towns like Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield have a high volume/percentage of immigration but they simply don't. Boston's is higher but still relatively lower compared to larger towns/cities. Whatever point you are trying to make after that is simply wrong.
What is a clean campaign though?You're always going to get underhand tactics (from both sides who want to win), you're always going to get exaggeration, elaboration in any sort of contest - political or otherwise.People knew what they had to do to get their voice heard and if 28% of the country opted not to vote, that's down to them.The 72% which did vote produced a result - which is to leave the European Union.
Quote from: Rigoglioso on June 27, 2016, 02:00:44 pmWhat is a clean campaign though?You're always going to get underhand tactics (from both sides who want to win), you're always going to get exaggeration, elaboration in any sort of contest - political or otherwise.People knew what they had to do to get their voice heard and if 28% of the country opted not to vote, that's down to them.The 72% which did vote produced a result - which is to leave the European Union.Why can't you answer a simple question, hypothetical as it may be???
Quote from: IDM on June 27, 2016, 02:17:09 pmFor about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.yes, or no?And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??The end result also MAY NOT have been different with a 'cleaner' campaign.Asking for a campaign with complete honesty, integrity and smelling of roses, isn't going to happen though.
For about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.yes, or no?And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??
Quote from: IDM on June 27, 2016, 02:26:21 pmQuote from: Rigoglioso on June 27, 2016, 02:21:36 pmQuote from: IDM on June 27, 2016, 02:17:09 pmFor about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.yes, or no?And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??The end result also MAY NOT have been different with a 'cleaner' campaign.Asking for a campaign with complete honesty, integrity and smelling of roses, isn't going to happen though.Which bit of "I am not saying the result would be different, in fact "leave" may get a bigger majority under a different campaign or if 100% voting was called for. And that would be fair enough as a result of a clean campaign." did you not understand?Regardless of whether we would get a clean campaign or not, do you, the poster posting as "Rigoglioso", agree that a cleaner campaign would in theory have given a fairer result, regardless of the winner?The best way to get a result would be to pick a day for a referendum, say at four months notice, and let the voters decide, based on their own preferences, the result.I'm sure that's what happened last week.
Quote from: Rigoglioso on June 27, 2016, 02:21:36 pmQuote from: IDM on June 27, 2016, 02:17:09 pmFor about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.yes, or no?And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??The end result also MAY NOT have been different with a 'cleaner' campaign.Asking for a campaign with complete honesty, integrity and smelling of roses, isn't going to happen though.Which bit of "I am not saying the result would be different, in fact "leave" may get a bigger majority under a different campaign or if 100% voting was called for. And that would be fair enough as a result of a clean campaign." did you not understand?Regardless of whether we would get a clean campaign or not, do you, the poster posting as "Rigoglioso", agree that a cleaner campaign would in theory have given a fairer result, regardless of the winner?
You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical questions - you're never going to get a squeaky clean campaign, which is what you're wanting.Hypothetically, if Germany had won the Second World War, would we be having a vote on the European Union?Hypothetically, if Angela Merkel hadn't opened up her country to mass immigration last year, would fears have been different?Hypothetically, if Boris had supported Cameron, would the vote have been different?Hypothetically, if hypothetical theories didn't exist, would we hypothetically be in a different hypothetical state right now?
A fair process was to hold a referendum and let the people decide. I'm sure that produced a majority and I'm sure the vote was only last week.
Quote from: Not Now Kato on June 25, 2016, 04:04:06 pmQuote from: IDM on June 25, 2016, 03:00:03 pmThe point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's.. That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same. Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process. A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system. Of course you might have got a bigger vote to Leave if you'd got more voters out.
Quote from: IDM on June 25, 2016, 03:00:03 pmThe point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's.. That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same. Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process. A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
CoppsI'm very much aware of that poll thanks. And the RELATIVE positions are not the issue. Corbyn's position vis-a-vis Cameron is utterly irrelevant. Cameron isn't his opponent. What matters is Corbyn's personal position itself. And that of the Labour Party. Can you possibly imagine a more propitious condition for an opposition? A Govt that has torn itself to pieces. A PM defeat and resigned.Where are Labour in the polls? Where is Corbyn's personal popularity?
CoppsHang on spadger. That post of mine was a response to you posting a poll saying Corbyn was more popular than Cameron. Now you're saying you don't go a bundle in polls. Is this the New Politics then, eh? Big up stuff that supports what you think and go "La, la! I can't hear you!" when contrary stuff comes along?
Given that some MPs can and do work with him would render the word 'impossible' a tad hyperbolic would it not? I also think you're kidding yourself if you dismiss the possibility that these MPs (whether they are a majority or not) never wanted to really work with HIM in the first place. I don't really know either way but to me both are plausible explanations.In the end you are kidding yourself if you think the mandate from the party means nothing. Because he will inevitably win another one and we'll see what that means.