BS: uk by-elections

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 02:12 PM

My grandad and uncle (his lad) both played in Besses band. Not sure, and there's nobody left to ask, but I think they were E flat bass and euphonium. Their surname was Curliss, quite a rare one with that spelling. I've quaffed many a pint of John Willie Lee's in my time, and a good few jars of Boddies in the days when Boddies WAS Boddies.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:59 PM

Ahhh - That was it! Besses o'th' Barn brass band brought it back. Not the John Willie Lees song, Raggy. Definitely a Mike Canavan one with the chorus

"Well some works at the Junction
And some works at the Jam
But they all join up in t'chorus
For the Middleton Junction Band"

It refers to, if I remember rightly, the rivalry between 2 factories (the Junction and the Jam - Not sure what they were) being forgotten when they got together to play with the brass band.

Now we are talking important stuff here. The rivalry between brass bands is legendary - Probably more so than football teams :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:28 PM

In Middleton Junction there's a brewery so fine
Where they make a potion much sweeter than wine
if you've never tried it then now is the time
for a pint of John Willie Lee's a pint of John Willie Lee's

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:10 PM

Heaton Park's the old road, innit? Haven't been there for a few years, ever since my mum got too infirm to go for a walk. Those motorways are a pain at the moment and will be for years. The "smart motorways" near Brum and Bristol do seem to do the job though, so maybe the roadworks are worth it. On both Thursday and Friday afternoons the week before last there was trouble on the M60 east of Besses and the traffic backed up right round Besses roundabout. Bloody chaos. When I'm going to Radcliffe I always come off at Besses, from where it's less than ten minutes to their house.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 12:51 PM

Most happy to oblige. Weeeeed!

Why, don't mind if I do.

Jim - We are raising the standard of discussion considerably I'll have you know!

Steve - Thought of you earlier. Went to visit aging parent and sons and heirs in Salford. There was a problem where the M66 joins the M60 with resultant queues so we avoided the Irwell Valley bit of the M60 and came off at the Middleton junction. Hey, there is a song about that. Mike Canavan I think... Anyway, went past Heaton Park and down Sheepfoot Lane and across the 2 Bury Roads - Can never remember which is which. There is a new Italian place with a coffee shop on the corner of one of them. Ever tried it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 11:56 AM

Hmmm. Not quite sure what I might have said to get me that low, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:26 AM

"All," Jim??"
Don't fall to their level Steve - you're better than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:14 AM

Most happy to oblige. Weeeeed!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:09 AM

Cheers Iains, I loved the Flower Pot men when I was a youngster.

Flobblelob

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:01 AM

Here you are steve and gnomie. Your alter egos. Carefully pitched to your level. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6zNwBTLSWU

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:15 AM

I used to think that wanting to a dentist was a bit mad (several of my mates followed that path), but having as your ultimate career ambition the aspiration to be an analyst of faecal samples...??

Actually, "analyst" seems oddly appropriate. Can't quite put my finger on it...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:10 AM

You can can fit your bowels on one hand, Dave?

"All," Jim??

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Nice one Keith:-)

Forgot to mention the letters I got on Friday. One was from the bowel cancer screening service saying my test results were fine. The other was from Yorkshire water saying they were going to do some work. So, on the one hand my bowels are ok but, on the other, my water will be discoloured.

Must say it appealed to my sense of the ridiculous:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:54 AM

Not before reaching 300 anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

I really think this is finished
Two threads ending in schoolyard name-calling is enough for any promary school
You all should be ashamed of yourselves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:42 AM

I seem to recall that "draining the spuds" is a polite euphemism for going for a pee. 🤓

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:13 AM

Put up the bike shelter yesterday and it was particularly wet last night. Must go to check if it was all OK soon. The description said big enough for 2 bikes. I got 3 in! But one was the folder. Must see if the potato bag got too soggy as well but I think that should drain OK.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:48 PM

Desperados! 😂😂😂 Wake up and smell the narcissi! 💐🌼🌻🌺🌷🌸🥀🌹🌾🤸🏻‍♀️

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:29 PM

If you class me as an idiot and you admit to being off the top of your head, where does that place you on the scale of lunacy I wonder.
Oh and by the way, looking back thru some old threads I find the name shaw coupled with a description of being arrogant on more than a few occasions. This would lead me to suppose that you are the one with the problem. None so blind as those that cannot see stevie. You really must stop confusing the classroom with the big bad world outside. You may have felt you had papal infallibility in the classroom, but here I am afraid you must encounter reality. Your thoughts on anything stand entirely on their merit. and from what I have seen so far generally that ain't very high and they tend to topple when confronted by logic.
I suggest you get on yer bike, that you keep waffling on about, and peddle off among the weeds.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

You arrogant fool Stevie.....who are you to denigrate millions of people who have lost out to globalisation, as "racists"?

You have been wrong about almost every political issue in the last five years, Brexit, US election, immigration, etc.

These people have no pension featherbed ex "teachers", they live in poverty, obviously something that you have no understanding of. You live in a bubble sonny......someday there is going to be an almighty pop!!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:33 PM

Stop being such an idiot, Iains.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:30 PM

"Triuphalism" What on earth are you wittering about? Did you ask akela what it meant before using it? I cannot see any context deserving such a word.
"By any measure, referendums are absolutely the wrong way to go"
bit of a sweeping assertion. Is that a mere stevie the boy wonder construction or can you back it up with evidence with some degree of credibility?
I think you are out of your depth, better get back to the weeds.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:22 PM

Someone who is interested in saving their sorry arses from the undoubted dangers they would be exposed to should they go through it.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM

Glad we agree on something Teribus but thin ice is what some people chose to skate on. Who are you to tell them not to do it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:59 PM

So you think that an ignorant electorate are all "men of integrity," etc. Well I don't think they are, in very large numbers. I think that a large number of leave voters may have succumbed to the arguments of Johnson and Farage and voted on racist grounds. Can't prove it, any more then you can prove that MPs are in large part lacking in integrity. Yes we have had a number of referendums. But that does not necessarily enshrine them as integral to our democracy. During the time we've had parliamentary democracy, we've had capital punishment and we did deals with apartheid South Africa and supported General Pinochet. Doing wrong things whilst giving people the vote does not make those wrong things virtuous. By any measure, referendums are absolutely the wrong way to go. They are an abrogation of parliamentary democracy. Even when they suit your cause, as the 1975 one suited mine. If you can't shed your triumphalism and consider the matter objectively, you're not worth talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:41 PM

Succinct and to the point, David. The only reason these brexiteers are crowing about "the people having spoken" (which the vast majority haven't) is that they won the second referendum. Yes, the second. We had one in 1975 that they decisely lost but they have never given up trying to get their second one. I actually admire that and regard it as valid. Of course, they will say that the EEC we joined was just a common market and that things have changed. But there is still a common market and no-one was asked in the "democratic" second referendum whether they thought we should leave it. In fact, during the campaign we were given every hope that we'd be able to stay in the single market, a pipe dream of course, one of the many lies we were told by the leave campaign. As for the "things have radically changed in the last forty years" argument, I'll tell you summat. In the next two years of trying to do "deals" and make fudges, a hell of a lot more is going to change. So it's strange that the brexiteers are so resistant to having a third referendum (yes, a third). They got theirs but, scared that "the people" might change their minds after the negotiations, they are thoroughly resistant to what would be the most democratic outcome that any referendum could deliver (whether you agree with 'em or not), giving us a say on the final deal.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:21 PM

I hate to be a pedant but:-"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".

"Referenda have no place in a parliamentary democracy." This is a valid proposition but sadly the UK has had 12 referenda in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
Therefore a referendum definitely has a place within the UK system of government by virtue of the fact that the precedent has been set.
However the recent referendum has exposed some major weaknesses in the present system. Prior to such an event Parliament should enact the required legislation to make the result binding. Because dodgy dave was so cocksure about the remain vote winning nothing was done to cater for a majority vote for leaving. The entire exercise was a tragic comedy of errors and rank incompetence.
   My feeling is that on major issues a referendum is the correct way to go, otherwise the ruling party and their whips can exert influence and sway the vote. Anyone that believes the average politician is more concerned for his electorate than his sinecure is barking mad.
If all politicians were men of integrity and not careerists I could perhaps accept that the need for a referendum was negated as the required mechanisms to vote exist in Parliament.
However in the real world, the lobbyist, party whips, revolving doors, etc, etc inevitably exert a negative influence and a vote predicated on concsience may well be as rare as angel dust.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 02:41 PM

Referenda have no place in a parliamentary democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

"Anyone is entitled to complain about anything. It is what us people call free speech."

Very true Gnome, however, if what you are using that "freedom of speech" is to complain and challenge the result and validity of an election/referendum where you chose not to exercise your vote then you are on very thin ice. You either believe in the democratic process or you don't - the "Remoaners" obviously don't.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:19 PM

dthe g
"Any Scottish citizen above the age of 16 was able to vote in the Scottish independence referendum"

But the major point you managed to miss is that as far as the brexit vote was concerned they are still regarded as children and unable to vote until 18, as also is the case for european elections.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

if you are entitled to vote and for whatever reason you chose not to vote then you have got no right to complain about the result

Yes you are. Anyone is entitled to complain about anything. It is what us people call free speech. Also, your statement implies that if you did vote, you are entitled to complain. In which case, why, when people who voted complain about the result, they get told to shut the fuck up by you and your buddies? It seems that you want no complaints about the result from either those who did or did not vote.

Now, can you get back to the humour again. Tell us a joke. Or at least mention Nigel Farage or something...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:36 PM

Gnome:

"The two votes were on entirely different systems."

Thank goodness at least one of you have finally "cottoned on" to that little detail - pass the word on.

"The only person currently on about people not voting having no say is your protégé Iains"

I actually think that the point being made is that in any vote, irrespective of the subject, if you are entitled to vote and for whatever reason you chose not to vote then you have got no right to complain about the result - it has S.F.A. to do with not having a say in anything. Might take another 100 posts I suppose until you "cotton on" to that but we can live in hope as they say.

The statistics for McCluskey's election are most definitely aimed at who I said I aimed them at but specifically ex-Trades Union "Activist" Shaw - take all his arguments related to the Brexit result and apply them to McCluskey's election, let's here him state that McCluskey's election should be ignored. Want the stark comparison?

Brexit electorate - 46,501,241 compared to Unite Membership - 1,382,126

Brexit voter turnout - 72.2% compared to Unite voter turnout - 15.2%

Brexit Leave Vote - 51.9% compared to McCluskey's vote - 64.4%

Brexit Leave vote - 37.4% of the total electorate compared to McCluskey's vote - 10.5% of the total membership.

I know which of those two elections is more questionable and it certainly is NOT Brexit.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:40 AM

Stanton makes the point for me Iains and Teribus. The two votes were on entirely different systems. Those who seek to gain points by claiming they both got in on a majority are missing the fact that two different systems are in operation. The fact that I do not need to go through any linguistic trials get that point across to Steve, Raggy, Jim and countless other people further underlines the fact that we have a communications issue. Please note that I have never laid the blame at anyone's door. It is some sort of block that I can neither understand nor resolve.

Teribus. The only person currently on about people not voting having no say is your protégé Iains. I assume your point about the union vote was addressed to him. BTW, you seem to be slipping back. You need to keep up with the humour to get any better at it.

The camellia in our front garden has started to flower and has more buds on it than I have ever seen before. Just planted some spuds in a small sack. I may have left them a bit too long before planting but is so, not a huge loss. And what have I told you about stores other than Morrisons, Steve? If I as much as enter one I will be excommunicated and have to spend eternity wandering round the hell known as IKEA:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

Well done Iains and Stanron, you've absolutely trounced the "Usual Suspects" yet again using logic, common sense and irrefutable fact.

They've admitted their defeat as Shaw has now wandered off on the "Flora and Fauna" track with a Sainsbury's Advert thrown in either for good measure, or just to confirm his admission of defeat.

Question for our former Trades Union activists who witter on about elections, voter turn out, votes.

UNITE Trades Union - 1,382,126

Last leadership election:

Len McCluskey: 144,570 votes.

Jerry Hicks: 79,819 votes.

Number of ballot papers found to be invalid: 1,412.

Total number of valid votes cast: 224,389.

Turnout: 15.2 per cent.

Now because Corbyn's pal got in you will not hear any of them murmur about the voices of the 84.8% of the members who were entitled to vote but who didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:37 AM

Are you obtuse stevie? or perhaps just indulging in your favourite sport of trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM

"In a referendum or any vote it is only the numbers that count."

Which makes Hillary a clear winner. You OK with that? 😂

What "counts" is the electoral system in force. Numbers of electoral college votes "count" in the US. Numbers of MPs "count" here. The numbers of votes "counted" in our referendum. In systems with PR it may be that both votes and transferred votes "count." "Only the numbers count" is meaningless.

"As I said stevie boy, you have only two avenues to create change in a democracy:- the ballot box or revolution."

What a load of utter tosh. Blimey, you're getting worse all the time.

Another nice spring day this end. Lovely stroll up and down Bude canal. Lots of birdsong (generally the males telling other males to bugger off, but it still sounds great). Celandines everywhere. Huge clump of marsh-marigolds in a boggy bit. Wild garlic bursting into leaf. Gotta squash a leaf and sniff. One of my favourite springtime aromas.

If you like olives, Sainsbury's manzanilla ones with lemon and coriander are lovely and only £1.90 a pot. The coriander is well in the background if you don't like its assertiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:44 AM

You said: "Now why would you think me judgemental? I am only interested in the raw figures."

Then you said:

"Not voting, hiding in a hole in the ground, bleating "don't know who to vote for" is simply a cop out."

Sounds pretty judgemental to me! 😂😂😂

"You are the one with the fixation on making sweeping assertions without a shred of evidence as to why or why not people voted."

The very opposite. I declared that neither you nor I has the evidence to make assumptions as to why people did or didn't vote the way they did, let alone put numbers to it. It's all there in my posts, Iains. So are the inconsistencies in your posts I've just pointed to, unfortunately for you. Perhaps you should spend some time considering the issues to hand rather than thinking of the next sideswipe you can come up with at "stevieboy" or "jimmy," etc. You just make yourself easy meat. And you come across as rude and ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

dthe g."Just the validity of the statement that whoever gets most votes, wins." Had you used a comma instead of a fullstop at   the end of the previous phrase your intent may have become clear. I can only go by what you say. If you mean something else entirely perhaps you need to re articulate the phrase in question. And no I have not got it because you are comparing apples with oranges. Two electoral systems, two different sets of rules. In one the electoral college dictates outcomes, in the other majority votes.

"The rest of Iain's post is insulting, ignorant and laughable by turns. The irony is that he pretends to be a champion of democracy then supposes that not voting in a referendum completely disqualifies you from having a say (even though you still pay your taxes). Therein lies the seed of totalitarianism. Here, Iains. A little list off the top of my head of possible reasons for not voting in the referendum:"

You are betraying your own stupidity above Shaw. In a referendum or any vote it is only the numbers that count. Reasons are not in the equation, neither are non votes. You either have some magical way of exerting influence on a ballot box by not voting or you are a fool for believing that you do. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with it, off your head you may well be and that may well disqualify you from voting.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 08:11 AM

But Trump won a majority of the electoral college, which is what that system requires to win the election, so he won by a majority. You're the one in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:51 AM

Aye, I think you are right, Steve, you aging hippy you :-)

Not only missed the point but missed the chance to communicate and missed the bus. One last try is in order

Dthe G if you question the validity of a majority vote

I am not questioning and have never questioned the validity of a majority vote. If I have done so, to use Keith's favourite tactic, give me an example. Good luck with that. You are simply flailing about with random statements without really understanding what people are saying. You need to focus. Lets try it this way...

In the Brexit vote the majority of people who voted, voted to leave and, whether I like it or not, that is what is going to happen.

In the American presidential vote the majority of people who voted, voted for Hilary Clinton but Trump got in.

Now, people can either argue that a majority decision wins in which case Bexit won and Trump did not or they can argue that a majority decision may not win in which case the Trump election stands but the Brexit vote can be questioned. They cannot argue both at the same time and retain any sort of credibility.

Got it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:16 AM

Raggytash, I can assure you that I am no racist and I expect your views to the contrary are influenced more by your ideology than anything I have said.

I don't wish to "resettle" anyone , my views have always been that unregulated immigration damages us socially and economically.
Races don't really come into it, but cultures certainly do.
We need to control how many and what sort of people arrive in this country, be they white, black, or brown. Skin colour means nothing to me.

As the only Scot presently posting on this thread, my views on voting patterns have been determined by talking to hundreds of other Scots, taking data from SNP and Scottish Labour.

At heart the Scots are no keener on unregulated immigration than any other sensible people, in fact as a nation we are extremely socially conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:11 AM

As I said stevie boy, you have only two avenues to create change in a democracy:- the ballot box or revolution. The ballot box is available for all with an entitlement to vote. Should they not avail themselves of that right, that is a matter for them. Subsequently their views, intentions, wishes, influence is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Whatever cute excuses you may generate cannot alter the inescapable fact that only those that vote are counted. The ballot box works on simple majorities. Don't vote. don't exist. Simples really, but obviously not for some.
If you do not vote you have no voice. The ballot box gives not a fig for your reasons to be or not to be:- all it requires is your vote. Quite frankly generating a list of reasons why some chose not to vote is of zero significance as it has zero influence on the outcome.
Now why would you think me judgemental? I am only interested in the raw figures. You are the one with the fixation on making sweeping assertions without a shred of evidence as to why or why not people voted.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

"D the G. If you study the regional voting pattern for brexit you would see that, had the UK a similar electoral system as America, then the leave percentage would have been 60%."

What an intriguing concept! Change the voting system and all of a sudden 52% becomes 60%! Good grief, don't tell Mugabe, Putin or Kim U Flung Dung I Suck that! 😂😂😂

Chucked some nijer seed around me birdie station this morning and was rewarded with a close-up of a gorgeous male bullfinch. He's welcome as long as he stays away from my apple trees. One bullfinch can strip the fruit buds off a lot of trees!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:52 AM

He's been attending the Teribus Academy Of How To Miss The Point Every Time, Dave. Was I recommending the vote for children? No I was not. I was responding to Nigel's assertion that "the populace has spoken." It hasn't. The populace means everyone in the nation. Approximately one quarter of the populace voted to leave the EU. The point about under-18s, almost a quarter of the population and not far off the number who voted leave, is not that they should vote but that they will be severely affected by this disastrous turn of events, decided by just over a quarter of the populace, none of whom were under 18, for longer than the rest of us.

The rest of Iain's post is insulting, ignorant and laughable by turns. The irony is that he pretends to be a champion of democracy then supposes that not voting in a referendum completely disqualifies you from having a say (even though you still pay your taxes). Therein lies the seed of totalitarianism. Here, Iains. A little list off the top of my head of possible reasons for not voting in the referendum:

1. You were too lazy.

2. You didn't care.

3. You forgot.

4. You were ill on the day/in jail/abroad/smashed out of your skull.

5. You think that "all politicians are the same and you don't know what they're on about."

6. You listened to the two campaigns, decided that they were all heat and no light and didn't advance your knowledge of the issues, so you decided that you couldn't vote because you didn't know enough.

7. You oppose referendums on principle, on the grounds that you elect politicians to make important decisions about the country.

8. You listened to all the arguments and genuinely couldn't make up your mind.

Right, Iains. According to you, anyone who didn't vote now forfeits their right to be heard. As you haven't qualified that in any way, even though you've said it more than once, I assume that you think that all of the above have so forfeited. OK?

Or would you care to go through that list and discuss the relative merits and demerits of the different stances? Would you even care to put numbers to each category?   Or shall I make it easy for you? Generally speaking, people in all those categories pay their taxes and are entitled to use the services that the state pays for with those tax receipts. They aren't stopped from using the NHS or state schools for the kids because they haven't voted, and they don't get let off income tax or council tax if they haven't voted. As such, they have as much right to have a say as anyone else about how their money is used, and that includes how it is used in EU-related ways. Politics is very largely about how governments use our money. It doesn't suddenly become any less your money if you didn't vote.

And one last point (again, but you conveniently ignore it). If you feel entitled to be judgemental about people who didn't vote, maybe that entitles ME to be judgemental about some of the people who did vote. I reckon that large numbers of leave voters voted for the worst possible reasons. They were taken in by the lies about our money contributions. They were taken in by the totally unwarranted exaggerations about the deleterious effects of immigrants (who come here to work, rarely claim benefits, a majority of whom don't come from the EU anyway, who prop up our public services and who do jobs that Brits don't like doing). They were taken in by spurious arguments about "taking back control," when the overwhelming majority of laws that are EU-related have been cheerfully taken on board without demur. Or they are simply racist or xenophobic. Now I have NO evidence enabling me to put any figures to those categories. Or should I say that I have as much evidence as you have for knowing why some people didn't vote. As I asked, who made the more moral decision, the bloke who abstained because he genuinely couldn't make up his mind or the bloke who voted leave because he wants to keep foreigners out?




.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

Dthe G if you question the validity of a majority vote pray tell what distortions of logic would you replace it with.
Twould make betting on a football match or a horse race an intriguing exercise if the same procedure was followed.
It would entail a paradigm shift of epic proportions. How would you award prizes at the school sports day if there are no winners. This is some insane idea buried deep in the past columns of the gruniard.
   Without wading thru Hansard I cannot be sure if any MP's really had any proper debate on the brexit referendum. I get the impression it was a sole masterpiece from dodgy dave and led straight to his deserved doom. Advisors and MP's had zero or little influence on the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:16 AM

Yes it is indeed a red herring Iains, regardless of who comes out with. I have never used it to argue the validity of the presidential election. Just the validity of the statement that whoever gets most votes, wins.

Expecting MPs to do an honest days work has a HUGE influence on the referendum If they had done what they were paid to do and made the decision there would have been no stupid and ill informed referendum in the first place!

No, I do not believe that MPs are superior beings. I do believe they have advisors in place to give them the facts and that they should make a decision based on those facts instead of abdicating that responsibility.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:08 AM

D the G. if introducing speculative arguments that had the voting system been different..,.,,,, is a red herring it is strange that on other threads this argument has been used constantly to counter the validity of the recent presidential election. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is it not?
Expecting MP's to do an honest days work has zero influence on the outcome of a referendum. Your argument about MP's making decisions on your behalf on the basis that you pay their wages through taxation is a non sequitur when the populace is offered a referendum. The fact that the way the referendum was presented and enacted was deeply flawed is another argument entirely.
You surely do not subscribe to the puerile Shaw view that our MP's are superior beings that know better than us, rather than the grubby, grasping lobbying fodder that some of them have been shown to be. That is apart from their other well publicised sport of having their hands in the cookie jar when it comes to expenses.
Give me a referendum any day.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

It is introducing speculative arguments like if the electoral system had been different that is a red herring, Iains. It is not different - it is what we have. It is also a red herring, or more correctly a straw man argument, that taxation was introduced in connection with voting patterns. It was not. It was introduced to explain that everyone should be entitled to have their paid representatives do an honest days work instead of asking the people who pay them to make their decisions for them.

Yet more examples of skewed interpretations?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:12 AM

D the G. If you study the regional voting pattern for brexit you would see that, had the UK a similar electoral system as America, then the leave percentage would have been 60%. Introducing taxation as an argument is a red herring. Taxation is almost universal under all systems of government. It has zero to do with voting patterns or entitlement to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

I wonder why children under 18 are not given the vote?

Any Scottish citizen above the age of 16 was able to vote in the Scottish independence referendum. This was because that decision would affect those people more than those who are older. I am pretty sure that is what Steve was referring to yet, once again, it has been misinterpreted by those who seem to speak a different language.

As to paying taxes being facile, well, if you think that your very well paid member of parliament should be able to abdicate the responsibility he or she has for helping to run the country then that is up to you. I did vote in the referendum but had there been a third choice of 'get off your arse and do what you are supposed to do', I would have chosen that one.

DtG