New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're mistaken. There never was an EU referendum bill put to parliament during the coalition for the lib Dems to vote against; the Lib Dems wouldn't agree to one in the first place.

Also, having checked, the combined vote share of UKIP and the Conservatives was less than 50% in 2010 and 2015, so they couldn't have forced it through under PR.

First, The LibDems stated explicitly that they would not vote in favour nor against any bill the Tories brought forward. They claimed to object to the conditions attached to the bac-bencher's proposal:

"Lib Dem deputy leader Malcolm Bruce said: "The Liberal Democrats were never going to block their referendum bill. We were happy to allow them to try and get it passed in the House of Commons.

"But the truth is they have folded like a cheap deck chair and are trying to make us take the blame by adding ridiculous conditions they knew we would not and could not accept." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29811202

Second, You seem to have forgotten to add the LibDem % vote. I have repeatedly pointed out that the LibDems had a manifesto commitment to an in/out referendum. So did UKIP and the BNP. I simply can't see how you can construe from those commitments that a system of PR would have rendered a referendum near impossible.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He got 2 shots at winning an election for Labour, and failed. His 2019 result was frankly dreadful, and its purely down to Labour not being able to agree a coherent Brexit stance. The Tory's didn't have to do anything to stop Corbyn, they blew themselves up by engaging in a civil war. you can't expect the general public to vote for a party which can't run its on internal party affairs effectively... yet alone a large developed country. Their manifesto was a shambles, it had numerous policies which the leader had publicly came out against.

Corbyn's policies definitely had "an effect" in 2019, they had the effect of making the general public realise that he didn't have the backing of his own party, because many of the the policies in the manifesto, voted through at conference, were so clearly completely at odds with Corbyn's own ideals - including the commitment to renew Trident. 

Its frankly embarrassing how Labour still look at external factors to blame for their electoral failures rather than at themselves, some of the still blame "Murdoch" despite all his papers dying.... the Sun flogs about 25% of the number of copies that it does when it came out to back Blair "it woz the sun wot wun it" doesn't apply anymore, in the social media age.

Everything you have posted there applies to the Tories also. Johnson came to power on the back of May's Brexit agreement (which he virtually copied). The infighting over something that we had been told was like shelling peas was laughable. Idiots like Francois (the name being touted as the one arrested for rape) being able to come to the forefront of politics.

And now the muddle that has been Tory governance since 2019, rumour after claim after mistake after rule break after law break.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

First, The LibDems stated explicitly that they would not vote in favour nor against any bill the Tories brought forward. They claimed to object to the conditions attached to the bac-bencher's proposal:

"Lib Dem deputy leader Malcolm Bruce said: "The Liberal Democrats were never going to block their referendum bill. We were happy to allow them to try and get it passed in the House of Commons.

"But the truth is they have folded like a cheap deck chair and are trying to make us take the blame by adding ridiculous conditions they knew we would not and could not accept." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29811202

Second, You seem to have forgotten to add the LibDem % vote. I have repeatedly pointed out that the LibDems had a manifesto commitment to an in/out referendum. So did UKIP and the BNP. I simply can't see how you can construe from those commitments that a system of PR would have rendered a referendum near impossible.

You keep pointing out the manifesto commitment to delivering an in/out referendum while ignoring the fact that they got into coalition and refused to agree to a referendum while in coalition.

We should rewind and remind ourselves that it's your premise that under PR, the lib Dems would have cooperated  with the conservatives to deliver a referendum, and yet, both the Conservatives and Lib Dems had manifesto commitments for an in/out referendum, formed a majority government, but both conspired to blame each other that one hadn't happened.

This is irrefutable, real world proof that the Lib Dems would never cooperate with the Conservatives to bring about an in/out EU referendum. 

I was a Lib Dem member; they're pathologically pro-EU for the most part, but they also had some eurosceptic marginal constituencies, which is why they entertained the referendum notion, as a party that never dreamt they might actually have a role in government before the 2010 election and be measured against their manifesto.

And once again, in neither 2015 or 2019, UKIP and the conservatives didn't have the required 50% vote share to pass one under PR.

So hats off for the effort you've put into the arguments, but what you're suggesting is simply incredible nonsense.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

8 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Them's the rules. Parliament is elected by the public and the elected representatives choose the PM as the leader of the party that leads the government, be it a majority government, coalition government, or minority government, that can get the support of more than half of parliament.

 

No, they don't - not if the party in government is the Tory Party anyway.

The PM is chosen by the completely unelected (and unrepresentative even of normally Tory voting voters) members of the Tory party itself. There is no semblance of representative democracy in this process which is now happening for the third time in six years.

As I said in my original post the choice of PM will be made 0.2% of the electorate.

As if that weren't bad enough (don't really see how it could be much worse) they are electing in theory a PM for the UK but I think we can be fairly sure that the current Tory membership is almost exclusively English, with tiny numbers in Scotland, not many more in Wales and presumably close to zero or zero in NI, unless it is possible to be a member of both the Tory and one of the Unionist parties which would be really bizzarre.

So in this, as in so much else the English decide and the rest of the UK just has to lump it.

As you say 'Them's the rules' and there lies the heart of the problem. Every country\society in the world has rules, so what? Dictatorships have rules, elective dictatorships have rules, authoritarian states have rules and true democracies also have rules.

The UK clearly isn't a true democracy, in fact its not even close but it is quite hard to say exactly what it is - elective dictatorship I guess gets the closest to describing it, which is slightly ironic as I believe the term was coined by a former Tory Lord Chancellor and one-time contender for the party leadership 😀

[horsefly 4,310]

44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You keep pointing out the manifesto commitment to delivering an in/out referendum while ignoring the fact that they got into coalition and refused to agree to a referendum while in coalition.

We should rewind and remind ourselves that it's your premise that under PR, the lib Dems would have cooperated  with the conservatives to deliver a referendum, and yet, both the Conservatives and Lib Dems had manifesto commitments for an in/out referendum, formed a majority government, but both conspired to blame each other that one hadn't happened.

This is irrefutable, real world proof that the Lib Dems would never cooperate with the Conservatives to bring about an in/out EU referendum. 

I was a Lib Dem member; they're pathologically pro-EU for the most part, but they also had some eurosceptic marginal constituencies, which is why they entertained the referendum notion, as a party that never dreamt they might actually have a role in government before the 2010 election and be measured against their manifesto.

And once again, in neither 2015 or 2019, UKIP and the conservatives didn't have the required 50% vote share to pass one under PR.

So hats off for the effort you've put into the arguments, but what you're suggesting is simply incredible nonsense.

I'm afraid you're misrepresenting what I said yet again. Go back to the first exchanges. You claimed that had PR been the system of election there would have been little chance of a referendum on leaving the EU happening. The ONLY thing I claimed was that this specific claim was completely unjustified. To cite evidence for my case I pointed out that the ONLY party that had a manifesto commitment to having an in/out EU referendum was actually the LibDems; I made no claim about their resolve in following through on their commitment. I also pointed out that UKIP came 4th and the BNP 5th (both parties supporting a referendum).  The point was simply that PR would have given a significant number of seats to pro-referendum parties, so very obviously such a system would have leant more force to the case for a referendum, NOT reduce the chances of that happening. The only piece of "incredible nonsense" is your insistence that what is so glaringly obvious is not the case. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

17 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid you're misrepresenting what I said yet again. Go back to the first exchanges. You claimed that had PR been the system of election there would have been little chance of a referendum on leaving the EU happening. The ONLY thing I claimed was that this specific claim was completely unjustified. To cite evidence for my case I pointed out that the ONLY party that had a manifesto commitment to having an in/out EU referendum was actually the LibDems; I made no claim about their resolve in following through on their commitment. I also pointed out that UKIP came 4th and the BNP 5th (both parties supporting a referendum).  The point was simply that PR would have given a significant number of seats to pro-referendum parties, so very obviously such a system would have leant more force to the case for a referendum, NOT reduce the chances of that happening. The only piece of "incredible nonsense" is your insistence that what is so glaringly obvious is not the case. 

You're a smart guy. I don't believe that you believe a word you're saying.

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

Tonight's debate.

I trust SKS, Davey and their teams will record all exchanges - bound to be some good zingers, one liners and moments of embarrassment to use against either candidate when the time comes and this nightmare government can end.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Tonight's debate.

I trust SKS, Davey and their teams will record all exchanges - bound to be some good zingers, one liners and moments of embarrassment to use against either candidate when the time comes and this nightmare government can end.

Why should 0.2% of the population have it forced on them? Couldn't they put it on their website?

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're a smart guy. I don't believe that you believe a word you're saying.

I most certainly do because I believe the point I'm making is so very obvious. I think your problem in understanding my point is that you are too focused on the subsequent argument that blew up between the Tories and LibDems over that nature of an in/out referendum. So let's try and simplify the issue by considering the following counterfactual thought experiment:

Imagine the 2010 election was run on a PR system but with one change in the outcome; that UKIP and the LibDems swapped their percentage of the vote. That would have resulted in a very large minority of seats for UKIP. Do you think this PR result would have increased the chances of an in/out referendum or made it virtually impossible? 

Even if we simply imagine the 2010 election run on a PR system and maintained the actual real results, we would have seen an increased number of LibDem MPs, and at that precise time their policy was to call for an in/out referendum on EU membership. So at that time the chances of an in/out referendum would have been increased, not decreased.

Thus it seems pretty obvious to me that it is simply wrong to claim that had we had a PR system at the time the chances of an in/out referendum would have been virtually zero. After all, one of the most powerful criticisms of PR is that it gives minority parties too much power to pursue their fringe interests.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I most certainly do because I believe the point I'm making is so very obvious. I think your problem in understanding my point is that you are too focused on the subsequent argument that blew up between the Tories and LibDems over that nature of an in/out referendum. So let's try and simplify the issue by considering the following counterfactual thought experiment:

Imagine the 2010 election was run on a PR system but with one change in the outcome; that UKIP and the LibDems swapped their percentage of the vote. That would have resulted in a very large minority of seats for UKIP. Do you think this PR result would have increased the chances of an in/out referendum or made it virtually impossible? 

Even if we simply imagine the 2010 election run on a PR system and maintained the actual real results, we would have seen an increased number of LibDem MPs, and at that precise time their policy was to call for an in/out referendum on EU membership. So at that time the chances of an in/out referendum would have been increased, not decreased.

Thus it seems pretty obvious to me that it is simply wrong to claim that had we had a PR system at the time the chances of an in/out referendum would have been virtually zero. After all, one of the most powerful criticisms of PR is that it gives minority parties too much power to pursue their fringe interests.

 

You say I'm too focused on what the lib Dems actually did in reality when in a position of influence rather than some empty words in a preceding manifesto. Like I said, I don't believe you believe what you're arguing.

Don't believe you. The fact is that PR favours gentle progress, the status quo and the centre everywhere it's used.  Whereas first past the post increasingly delivers polarisation and chaos as we've seen in the US and UK of recent years.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't believe you. The fact is that PR favours gentle progress, the status quo and the centre everywhere it's used.  Whereas first past the post increasingly delivers chaos.

It is irrelevant whether you believe me. Try answering the points I have made.

I guess you didn't watch much of what happened in Austria in recent history if you think PR favours gentle progress.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It is irrelevant whether you believe me. Try answering the points I have made.

I guess you didn't watch much of what happened in Austria in recent history if you think PR favours gentle progress.

I have answered them. They're all specious nonsense. There's no universe where the lib Dems would actively contribute to removing us from the EU, whatever the 2008 manifesto said. Like I said, I don't believe you're arguing honestly.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't believe you. The fact is that PR favours gentle progress, the status quo and the centre everywhere it's used.  Whereas first past the post increasingly delivers polarisation and chaos as we've seen in the US and UK of recent years.

40 out of the 43 European nations use a form of PR or alternatives instead of FPTP. And I would suggest many of those equally deliver chaos. What I would say is that we should have a public holiday on GE day and that it should be compulsory.

I am in two minds about which system. Each has its merits. Each has its pitfalls. Clearly, we in the UK are one of the few in the world using the system we do.

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I have answered them. They're all specious nonsense. Like I said, I don't believe you're arguing honestly.

Oh dear! I'm not going to bother engaging with you if you can't respond honestly. You have failed miserably to answer any of my points and questions. It is patently obvious that PR in the 2010 election would have resulted in more MPs with a manifesto commitment for an in/out EU referendum. The fact you won't admit that is what is clearly dishonest. One simply has to correlate those MPs with the actual vote share. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

40 out of the 43 European nations use a form of PR or alternatives instead of FPTP. And I would suggest many of those equally deliver chaos. What I would say is that we should have a public holiday on GE day and that it should be compulsory.

I am in two minds about which system. Each has its merits. Each has its pitfalls. Clearly, we in the UK are one of the few in the world using the system we do.

So you're telling me that you have more confidence in a  system that delivers Conservative majorities the majority of the time as preferable to a system that makes majority government of any one party highly unlikely when you hate the conservatives so much? That's insane.

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why should 0.2% of the population have it forced on them? Couldn't they put it on their website?

All I want is a sensible caretaker PM for a year or two. And no that isn't Truss as I suspect tonight will show.

Then again the Tory party members haven't exactly shown themselves to be sensible recently.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

22 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! I'm not going to bother engaging with you if you can't respond honestly. You have failed miserably to answer any of my points and questions. It is patently obvious that PR in the 2010 election would have resulted in more MPs with a manifesto commitment for an in/out EU referendum. The fact you won't admit that is what is clearly dishonest. One simply has to correlate those MPs with the actual vote share. 

A manifesto commitment is not a guarantee that a coalition agreed on a principle will deliver it. This is the fundamental dishonesty in your argument: that you're pretending a manifesto commitment amounts to a guarantee that they'll deliver under any circumstances.  That's fair enough for a single party majority with the power to deliver is own agenda on its own terms, but not in any other circumstances.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Tonight's debate.

I trust SKS, Davey and their teams will record all exchanges - bound to be some good zingers, one liners and moments of embarrassment to use against either candidate when the time comes and this nightmare government can end.

I just can't bring myself to watch YF. So much in the press already. One comes across as rather a smart Alec and the other just reminds me somehow of Bonnie Langford - in Just William.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,310]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A manifesto commitment is not a guarantee that they will deliver it. This is the fundamental dishonesty in your argument.

Totally and obviously irrelevant to your fundamental claim that a system of PR would have rendered a Brexit referendum virtually impossible. Either you don't understand logical implication, or you are being brazenly dishonest.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Totally and obviously irrelevant to your fundamental claim that a system of PR would have rendered a Brexit referendum virtually impossible. Either you don't understand logical implication, or you are being brazenly dishonest.

Yeah, please follow up on your threat to stop engaging because you've made the transition from implausible arguments and sophistry to utter bull sh*t.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah, please follow up on your threat to stop engaging because you've made the transition from implausible arguments and sophistry to utter bull sh*t.

If PR had been the system in 2010, electors would have voted for there to be a much greater number of MPs who had promised to institute an in/out EU referendum. Simple fact. Your denial of that obvious fact explains why you prefer to resort to abuse than honestly admit your claim about PR was entirely fallacious.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

If PR had been the system in 2010, electors would have voted for there to be a much greater number of MPs who had promised to institute an in/out EU referendum. Simple fact. Your denial of that obvious fact explains why you prefer to resort to abuse than honestly admit your claim about PR was entirely fallacious.

That's only true if you count the lib Dems as pro referendum based on the 2008 manifesto, which is nullified by their actions as part of the subsequent conservative/lib Dem government. It's a dishonest argument on your part and you know it.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 832]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah, please follow up on your threat to stop engaging because you've made the transition from implausible arguments and sophistry to utter bull sh*t.

The two of you have spent about three days arguing over some hypothetical and unprovable issue relating to an event that took place 6 years ago. Do you think you might  missing out  on something more important in life whilst both going for the last word?

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's only true if you count the lib Dems as pro referendum based on the 2008 manifesto, which is nullified by their actions in the subsequent government. It's a dishonest argument on your part and you know it.

 

FFS! Your claim was that PR would have rendered a referendum virtually impossible. I have just demonstrated that PR in 2010 would have resulted in the election of a far greater number of MPs who had promised to institute a referendum on EU membership. Ergo your claim is clearly false. Whether those same MPs ultimately reneged on their promise is completely irrelevant to your claim.

[sonyc 5,541]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The two of you have spent about three days arguing over some hypothetical and unprovable issue about an event that took place 6 years ago. Do you think you might  missing out  on something more important in life whilst both going for the last word?

 

Talking of an important issue answer me this BB.... Alien v Predator ...Who would really win?

[Barbe bleu 832]

Just now, sonyc said:

Talking of an important issue answer me this BB.... Alien v Predator ...Who would really win?

One on one, predator for sure.   But the neomorph swarm would win against a hunter band.  Not sure predators have ever been seen together in great numbers 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,425]

If I have learned one thing from this debate, it is that they really shouldn't, it shows both of them in a terribly bad light.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

If I have learned one thing from this debate, it is that they really shouldn't, it shows both of them in a terribly bad light.

Insisting that people follow the logic of their own claims seems rather important in an age of "fake news" and "alternative facts"

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why should 0.2% of the population have it forced on them? Couldn't they put it on their website?

Did you object this strongly when the Labour leadership debates were on the TV? 

And is your remote control broken and the telly stuck on BBC 1?

[Mr Apples 1,327]

Liz Truss still hasn't mentioned her beaver reintroduction yet...disappointing. 🤣

Apples