So that begs the eternal question which we keep asking you: Why do you blindly support someone who wouldn't hesitate to strip you of your benefits and make your life even more miserable for you if he could?

 

Just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Well because I don't think they will tighten the rules any more. The Tories do have some compassion.

The Tories do have some compassion.

 

By the way Chris, I think this golden nugget from vidcapper the other day sounds quite apt for how Boris would perceive you if he knew you.

 

So everything would be wonderful if the left had the same control over the media that you *claim* the Right has - and would gladly hand over their hard-earned wages to give to the feckless? :rolleyes:

Edited September 17, 20195 yr by Tawdry Hepburn

Well because I don't think they will tighten the rules any more. The Tories do have some compassion.

 

You are an actual HALFWIT. :lol: :lol:

It would be poetic justice following the mess of the AV Referendum if the Lib Dems somehow managed to crack FPTP and win an election after all.

It would be rather hilarious. Listening to Tories stubbornly refusing to admit that such a result ought the be the final nail in the coffin for FPTP would make for an entertaining election night programme :lol:

By the way Chris, I think this golden nugget from vidcapper the other day sounds quite apt for how Boris would perceive you if he knew you.

 

That quote from vidcapper inadvertently admitting the right wing press is not fit for service in a democracy is the giftt hat keeps on giving :rofl:

I worry about the Lib Dems position on Brexit now - they have went to the extremes that the tories have went to on the other side and hope Labour can go right through the middle with their second referendum pledge.

I worry about the Lib Dems position on Brexit now - they have went to the extremes that the tories have went to on the other side and hope Labour can go right through the middle with their second referendum pledge.

 

Not really - they are just establishing themselves ready for the future. Ensures they probably win back a lot of seats in the south and they might make some ground elsewhere in Pro-Remain areas. If we leave the EU their future manifesto will always have EU membership on the cards, that's why this Brexit issue is probably never going away. If we leave and it goes wrong it will be straight back on the manifesto for the other parties.

 

Labour can't really decide what they want to do in terms of Brexit yet apart from from have another referendum.

I would argue that's the problem with the LDs position though. I think another referendum is more popular than outright revoking article 50 because after all there were a lot of people who voted to leave and still are.

Edited September 17, 20195 yr by Steve201

I would argue that's the problem with the LDs position though. I think another referendum is more popular than outright revoking article 50 because after all there were a lot of people who voted to leave and still are.

The Lib Dems have always been pro-EU. If they promised a referendum, they would be asked what they would do if that referendum produced a majority for Leave. That would be a very difficult question to answer.

Exactly thereby ignoring the people who wanted to leave which is fair enough as they want to show they are sticking up for their principles but I think a lot less people will be sympathetic to that in the country.

Exactly thereby ignoring the people who wanted to leave which is fair enough as they want to show they are sticking up for their principles but I think a lot less people will be sympathetic to that in the country.

Wouldn't it be rather odd if there was no party standing up unequivocally for the people who voted Remain?

 

Of course the Lib Dems risk losing some votes with their overtly pro-Remain stance. However, a party that never does anything that risks losing votes is just wishy-washy.

Exactly thereby ignoring the people who wanted to leave which is fair enough as they want to show they are sticking up for their principles but I think a lot less people will be sympathetic to that in the country.

 

And the brexshitters ignored everyone else and LIED TO SCRAPE A TEENY TINY "WIN" THAT WOULDN'T BE A WIN IN A REAL VOTE ANYWAY!

No because genuine cases like mine will always win on a judicial appeal.

 

Better hope you always have the energy to go through a court case and they don't use the fact that you do as proof that you are 'fit for work'!

And the brexshitters ignored everyone else and LIED TO SCRAPE A TEENY TINY "WIN" THAT WOULDN'T BE A WIN IN A REAL VOTE ANYWAY!

 

And by 'a Real Vote', do you mean one rigged to preserve the status quo? :unsure:

 

REmember the first Scottish Devolution referendum? The Scots voted 'Yes' but the vote was deemed to have 'failed' because 'not enough of the electorate voted for change'. That proved pure gold for the SNP, who've never looked back since.

 

Also, those sorts of referenda can be easily sabotaged by opponents of change, simply by refusing to participate, leaving the total votes cast below the required limit, whatever the margin.

 

 

Wouldn't it be rather odd if there was no party standing up unequivocally for the people who voted Remain?

 

Of course the Lib Dems risk losing some votes with their overtly pro-Remain stance. However, a party that never does anything that risks losing votes is just wishy-washy.

 

It would be rather odd if we had not had a referendum in 2016 and been negotiating to leave ever since. This move just stinks of being sore losers. Even a lot of pro remain seats in the south with Tory MPs accept we have to leave in some shape or form.

I find it incredible Steve that you continue to argue on the basis of losers and winners as if politics was a zero-sum game. It’s not. It’s quite rightful to pursue policy that averts disaster and I wouldn’t trust any politician that does otherwise.

 

Soft Brexit is what would have been acceptable. Clearly that’s failed. Self-destructive courses to pursue some rhetorical corruption of an old vote is dangerous.

 

these years will prove the greatest ever argument against direct democracy

And by 'a Real Vote', do you mean one rigged to preserve the status quo? :unsure:

 

REmember the first Scottish Devolution referendum? The Scots voted 'Yes' but the vote was deemed to have 'failed' because 'not enough of the electorate voted for change'. That proved pure gold for the SNP, who've never looked back since.

 

Also, those sorts of referenda can be easily sabotaged by opponents of change, simply by refusing to participate, leaving the total votes cast below the required limit, whatever the margin.

 

A real vote is a binding one.

 

The first Scottish referendum had a % threshold. Brexshit would also have had one PLUD a 3 nation lock if it were binding and a VOTE. It wasn't and so it was just a glorified opinion poll. Sorry.

 

It would be rather odd if we had not had a referendum in 2016 and been negotiating to leave ever since. This move just stinks of being sore losers. Even a lot of pro remain seats in the south with Tory MPs accept we have to leave in some shape or form.

 

No we don't. 51% and 2 nations just isn't enough for major change. The only thing you might have had a mandate for is soft Brexshit. It would be a compromise anyway, seeing as it was a 50 50 split. But Leave lied and overspent, and so now you don't even have that.

Better hope you always have the energy to go through a court case and they don't use the fact that you do as proof that you are 'fit for work'!

 

 

I think you can opt to do it by Webcam now.