Jump to content

The Official Labour Foot-Shoot Thread, Mk II

Brett-Butler
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Views 125.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

The second one is interesting. I wasn't aware he had a strategy.

 

Surely his strategy is *not* having a strategy... :w00t:

Well apparently it was a motion that the members DEMOCRATICALLY voted on and backed at their conference in September... a bit like tuition fees.

 

ah so Labour party members don't really want a second referendum then and are happy Corbyn always votes for any lack-of-strategy that leads to chaos on the offchance that he might get to be PM, regardless of the negative consequences on people's lives?

 

His imminent sainthood can only be a matter of time.

 

Err what has Libdem promises that a Libdem government would carry out if they won power (which they didn't) got to do with the Labour Party members not being listened to by the elite with agendas running the party in a Labour cock-up thread?

 

Now, if I mentioned that the man who made deals with a Tory government that upset voters got unseated by a Labour party candidate that was a useless waste of space, then that would belong in a Labour foot-shooting thread.

 

It's SO easy to change the subject, you see, when you have nothing that actually can realistically argue the case against the initial statement and observation....errr cos it's true.

ah so Labour party members don't really want a second referendum then and are happy Corbyn always votes for any lack-of-strategy that leads to chaos on the offchance that he might get to be PM, regardless of the negative consequences on people's lives?

 

I just wonder if his only plan is to get into #10 by any means, and then try to muddle though...

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-65...-donations.html

 

Labour is fined £12,500 for failing to properly report the donations it received in their 2017 bid for power, Electoral Commission reveals

 

Electoral Commission fined Labour for failures in 2017 election donation reports

It is the biggest fine the watchdog has given to a political party for the offence

Labour Party said was a genuine administrative error and was not intentional

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-65...-donations.html

 

Labour is fined £12,500 for failing to properly report the donations it received in their 2017 bid for power, Electoral Commission reveals

 

Electoral Commission fined Labour for failures in 2017 election donation reports

It is the biggest fine the watchdog has given to a political party for the offence

Labour Party said was a genuine administrative error and was not intentional

 

peanuts compared to the millions illegally used in the referendum. Still, I'm glad you appear to approve of investigations and fines.

peanuts compared to the millions illegally used in the referendum. Still, I'm glad you appear to approve of investigations and fines.

 

My point was not about the level of overspending, but of the fact of it - in other words, it's a dangerous can of worms for Labour to try and open... :thinking:

My point was not about the level of overspending, but of the fact of it - in other words, it's a dangerous can of worms for Labour to try and open... :thinking:

 

err "it's all fair in love and war as long as you get the result you want".

 

I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but that is your usual sentiment when it comes to vote rigging/overspending/lying/etc?

 

Me, I'm in favour of anyone breaking the rules getting massive fines, and the results disqualified and re-run, but that's just me....

My point was not about the level of overspending, but of the fact of it - in other words, it's a dangerous can of worms for Labour to try and open... :thinking:

According to the report you posted, it wasn't about overspending. The fine was for accounting errors. That is a very different matter, hence the much lower fine.

err "it's all fair in love and war as long as you get the result you want".

 

I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but that is your usual sentiment when it comes to vote rigging/overspending/lying/etc?

 

Me, I'm in favour of anyone breaking the rules getting massive fines, and the results disqualified and re-run, but that's just me....

 

You do realise what can happen when the courts force a rerun, right?

 

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Winchester_by-election

That had nothing to do with breaking the rules.

 

SO what? The issue is the fact of the courts dismissing a democratic vote, not *why* they did so.

SO what? The issue is the fact of the courts dismissing a democratic vote, not *why* they did so.

There is a big difference between annulling a result because one side cheated and doing so because of a procedural error.

There is a big difference between annulling a result because one side cheated and doing so because of a procedural error.

 

Legally, perhaps - but voters will draw no distinction, all they care about is the courts 'interfering' in the democratic process.

 

Do you honestly think that people who've wanted out of the EU for a long time, will change their minds just because some judge rules that one side spent a bit too much? :rolleyes:

Edited by vidcapper

Legally, perhaps - but voters will draw no distinction, all they care about is the courts 'interfering' in the democratic process.

 

Do you honestly think that people who've wanted out of the EU for a long time, will change their minds just because some judge rules that one side spent a bit too much? :rolleyes:

OK, fine. Let’s do away with this politically correct nonsense about not being able to bribe voters. After all, that discriminates against the rich who can afford to pay the bribes. If the Russians want to interfere, we should welcome them with open arms.

 

BTW, this weekend apparently marks the point at which demographic changes mean Remainers now outnumber Leavers without a single person changing their mind.

Legally, perhaps - but voters will draw no distinction, all they care about is the courts 'interfering' in the democratic process.

 

Do you honestly think that people who've wanted out of the EU for a long time, will change their minds just because some judge rules that one side spent a bit too much? :rolleyes:

 

Just because some people dont care about democracy and rules doesn't mean they should be abandoned and let the richest lying corrupt dictator hold power. Because that's what you're trying to condone taking it to it's logical end.

 

If it had been the Remainers who put millions illegally into the EU campaign you would be frothing at the mouth about it - I mean we've heard nothing but moans since the referendum about an actual legal pamphlet issued by the Tories (the ones who are steering the whole Brexit machine so successfully) as if in some way that was the end of all democracy and cheating and therefore anything done by Leave campaigners is fine and dandy. Desperately convenient how one's morals can switch when one is looking for excuses to justify the unjustifiable.

So, the ballot was spoilt, the result unclear, it was re-run and a clear winner emerged suggesting the decision to re-run was correct.

 

No wonder you hate this democratically fair decision.....

 

But in this case, mere overspending is hardly a sufficient reason to override the biggest vote in British history.

 

That would be punishing the voters, rather than the wrongdoers, and besides, unlike a by-election, the vote cannot be re-run under the original conditions.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.