Not happy with the decision?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Haven't you been listening to the news this weekend? Haven't you heard what our next PM and his de facto spokesman said?

[Copps is Magic]

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.

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.

[IDM]

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?

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.

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.

That's not my point at all...  despite knowing what "politics" is all about, do you not agree that a clean campaign would have seen a fairer result, whichever way it went???

Simple question...

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

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?

I don't know, why did all these towns vote 'leave' in their droves? No guesses, please.

[Copps is Magic]

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.

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?

I mean, exactly. Well done. That's exactly the type of question you should be asking. Because its kind of strange isn't it that immigration is raised as an issue when in many high leave vote areas it isn't even that prominent. Kind of points to other deep-seated issues that led to this situation. Hopefully tells you (us) something also about how the immigration issue was 'used'.

[IDM]

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.

Why can't you answer a simple question, hypothetical as it may be???

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

Why can't you answer a simple question, hypothetical as it may be???

Because he can't and he knows he can't.

[IDM]

Yes Glyn, he can.  For some reason though he chooses not to.

[IDM]

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??

[IDM]

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??

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?

[IDM]

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??

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.

So, you are STILL refusing to answer a question??  Is it that difficult?  You don't need to step down from your beliefs or opinions to answer the question, just say yes or no??

Oh and you missed the bit about "based on their own preferences yet influenced by lies and mislead by spin" in your non-answer above??

[IDM]

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?

Thud!!!!!!!!

In my last post with re-quotes included I asked you the same question 3 times, I wasn't suggesting any other hypothetical questions - just the one!!, just asking YOU a straightforward question.

Yet you AGAIN refused to answer, and have gone off at another tangent.

So I say again:

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?

[Copps is Magic]

I take it you won't be supporting a 2nd referendum in Scotland?

[IDM]

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.

What does it take to get you to answer a simple question???

You are not stupid, not unintelligent, and I do understand what you have said but yet again you haven't answered!  It doesn't matter whether we disagree, whether I "like" your answer or not - but you don't answer...

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

You've got more chance of striking matches on wet tripe than getting Rigo to answer a simple question.

[Not Now Kato]

The 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.

Indeed.  Equally, Remain might have got a bigger vote if more voters turned out, no one knows. But either way, it would have been far more representative than the current one.
 
 

[BobG]

Sadly, Rigo is turning into a replica of you know who. It's a crying shame too.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

I'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?

Yes, well.

As I was saying...

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-political-poll-2/

[The Red Baron]

Though this suggests the current alternatives to Corbyn wouldn't improve matters much

https://mobile.twitter.com/martinboon

Translation - it's a huge mess for Labour however you look at it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That's taking the current alternatives.

Smith entering the vote has turned Eagle from a direct challenger into a stalking horse. If they - combined - can obtain a big enough share of the vote to make Corbyn resign but neither win outright themselves, then I think other big guns can throw their hats into the ring in the way that Major and Hurd could only stand against Heseltine once Thatcher had resigned - in the same way that a Deputy Leader like Tom Watson can't really stand against an incumbent Leader. And Watson becoming Leader is probably the best chance of uniting the party at the moment.

[Copps is Magic]

Polls?

I put as much worth into them as the air that exits my arse. Frequently wrong, wildly dependent on methodology and politically motivated. And that's the pollsters themselves speaking, not me. Go and search out their blogs - they all have them. It would take me 5 minutes to go and find a poll that is more favourable to Corbyn but in all honesty, a poll which amounts to an opinion on May's hair means diddly squat to me, because that is what it amounts to.

Do you want to know which studies I've been reading lately - This is rigorous research that should mean something to you.

Remember Eagle's window

See Billy, I don't get you really. You've told us you've campaigned for labour in the past and you seem like you passionately support the party. However, instead of fighting for that party based on how the country should be ran, you're more interested in which personality should run it. I think you've got your priorities in the wrong order. No doubt you will say 'we can't achieve anything without being in power' but that really isn't true in the fullest sense of how power works in this country. Even one of your recent posts was about changing the voting system to something more representative of the spectrum of political opinions but in the same breath you want to submit, to consent, to securing labour in power in the two-party system. That's odd to me because I think you ignore yourself.

If you want centrist labour politics then tell us what that is about, not who it is about.

I'm supporting Corbyn because of what he is about, not who is. That's ultimately how I believe it should work, I choose politicians who best represent my views.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Any leader of any party must be able to bring the whole of the party with them, as a united party. That's irregardless of their personal views and those of the party he's leading - it has to be a concensus, a broad platform that everybody can support to some degree.

It was always going to be the hardest part of his job to bring the PLP behind him, but that was his task - to get them to support him as a leader.

He has had ten months to do something about it, and he's failed.

He's a failure as a leader, irrespective of whether you agree with his political stance or not. Waving your mandate from the membership in the air means nothing if you can't get an important part of the party to back you. When droves of his MPs either don't want to work with him, or (according to some of them) find him impossible to work with anyway, it underlines how much of a failure as a leader he is as he has not brought them into the fold but it appears driven a bigger wedge between himself and them.

[Copps is Magic]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

Hang 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?

[Copps is Magic]

Copps

Hang 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?

Do read what I wrote. I didn't say I ignore contrary polls, I said I put very little worth on polls full stop. Both the ones I posted and the ones you posted. The context in which I posted that link was you claiming Corbyn has no popular support. Which is ludicrous.

Come on Billy, lets have something a bit meatier than your prejudices against Corbyn or we'll end up no where. You're very quick to point out where are others are wrong (it's your specialist subject) but you offer very little in return.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

Go on then, tell me what he's done to encourage the PLP to back him. If he can't lead them, he's failed as a leader.

As to seeing what that means, I've said to before. I think it'll mean a split, with the centrists becoming the new Official Opposition and Corbyn's rump becoming irrelevant.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

Where to begin.

The media don't like Corbyn? Welcome to the real world mate. We had this throughout the 80s and in fact ever since the Zinoviev Letter. We KNOW about this. Complaining about it doesn't make it any better. You have to make your strategy in light of that fact.

2) Disinformation. You're doing the La-La thing again. Idiots on both bloody sides are doing it and it makes my f**king blood boil. Yesterday, there was a Twittef storm about Owen Smith having stated in Radio4 that he was standing because he blamed Corbyn for Nice. Declamatory tweet after "how could you stoop so low? tweet.

Except of course he said nothing of the sort.

Complaining about misinformation from one side and ignoring the other side doesn't make one side right. There are idiots and devious t**ts on both sides.

And yes, I am one of those unprincipled judases who prefers a compromised Labour in power to a principled one out of power. Your reading of my take on PR is not appropriate by the way. That is a movement that could easily get an absolute majority of voter support across the spectrum from SWP to UKIP. That is totally different from trying to convince yourself that a relatively narrow left wing stance can convince enough people to win power.

I do, honestly, admire your take of supporting what you truly believe in. But in the shake up, you have to compromise if you actually want power. Simple as that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

This is impossible.

You post a link to ONE poll. I post a link to another one. Then you say you don't listen to individual polls.

Not sure where we go with this from here.

[Copps is Magic]

We're getting somewhere here.

Let me get it straight. You're openly admitting that you're not even waiting for a labour faction to present an alternative vision for the party, for the country, and for the left - but choosing instead to place preemptive support in that entity when it comes about whatever vision it presents to you?

Angela Eagle must come as a bitter bitter blow to you then Stubsy. That's about the kindest thing I can say. I don't actually think you're a unprincipled Judas, more of a reactionary.

On the first point you are misunderstanding me once again. I'm not claiming (its unfair that) Corbyn is misrepresented more than any other politician (although I suspect he is probably is). I'm saying isn't it refreshing that Corbyn has exposed the system for what it really is and is at least trying to present an alternative to the machine that Campbell and co rode and sustained. It is to me at least.

[MachoMadness]

Some interesting stats BST. There's a story behind every number, though. I'd wager May's high approval rating has a lot to do with her not actually having the chance to f**k anything up yet combined with the Tories putting on a united front and putting her over as a strong, decisive leader who wouldn't look out of place in the bible. She's been sold to us very, very well.

Labour have not once done that with Corbyn. They could have - when he was elected in a historic landslide despite only just scraping on the ballot, they could have worked with that and sold themselves as a galvanised, hip party that still had old school Labour values so as not to alienate older voters. They could have woven a grassroots, Rocky style narrative. Maybe if they had, Corbyn wouldn't be perceived as he is. But no, instead of running with that and closing ranks like the Tories have, they immediately threw their hands up and decided it would never work because apparently they'd get elected again in 2020 if only they were a bit more like the Tories. So we've had Labour MPs briefing against him in the press every week instead of singing his praises and marketing him as the demi-God from Islington who'll save the country. Too late for that now of course.