vidcapper

And imagine what would have happened if there *had* been a threshold, and Leave had the most votes without meeting it! Rather like the first Scottish Devolution referendum in 1979, and the SNP has been growing in strength ever since... :???:

Clive Lewis throws his hat in the ring... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-78...party-left.html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/d...o-unleash-party I'm sure he'll have full support from the party - the *Tory* party, that is... :lol:

But that just makes it look like sour grapes, if true. I haven't seen word of this, not even in the Guardian. :unsure:

Surely it is prudent not to implement it all at once without consideration? :mellow: IMO man-made GW is undeniable, but that there is an unquantified natural component to climate change too. I see the election set-back hasn't dampened your rhetoric... :rolleyes:

:P Nor does it stop the people overriding *that*, and sending them their P45's...

The charts would lose all credibility - people would constantly be asking where the Xmas songs were...

The highest Brexit vote shares... % Barnsley Central 30.44 Barnsley East 29.19 Hartlepool 25.84 Blaenau Gwent 20.57 Doncaster North 20.38 Easington 19.50 Hull West and Hessle 17.98 Hull East 17.77 Rotherham 17.18 South Shields 17.02 The clear theme is of traditionally strong Labour areas voting Brexit because they just couldn't quite stomach voting Tory. In fact 19 of the top 20 Brexit seats (and 37 of the top 40) were still held by Labour (some only just).

If he does beat impeachment, I can see Middle America turning out in droves to re-elect him.

I notice that most of seats with the biggest increase in turnout are ones held/won by the SNP, and the ones with the biggest drops, even when retained, are Labour. Also, many of the seats with the biggest increases in electorate were traditional Labour seats, eg. Stoke-on-Trent Central (up 17.9%), but that didn't save Labour - that suggests to me that the 'Get Brexit Done' factor was far stronger than the 'youthquake'.

:huh: There'll be a lot of disappointed kids without eggs then... :P

Just plugged those numbers into my own spreadsheet. :)

:blink: :wacko: That could be said of most Christmas songs, so it does not support your claim.

I hope MIchael doesn't read the above, it just won't fit with his theories... :mellow:

First off :dance: for that link, it's first I've seen! I must have a look if those 13 are newly-won seats...

Again, you assume, with no other 'proof' than your own convictions...

Of course not - that's why I said 'within reason'. I certainly don't condone sending dead rats, death threats. etc.

I consider politicians 'fair game' (within reason) as they are public figures, but not ordinary voters as they have no way to directly defend themselves (only through the ballot box).

I have figures, but since most of them pre-date the OCC's takeover of chart compilation, them may not be complete. 2406k ?? 1478k ? 746k 1928k ?? 785k (no way!) 948k (no f-ing way!!)

That could have been a major reason why he wasn't re-elected. :unsure:

Which specific ones?

Remind me - how well did such sentiments work last Thursday? :teresa:

Unfortunately, in my experience 'turning the other cheek' just gets you bruised on both sides of your face.

Can't see him *wanting* to! :P

The idea that they are just Labour-lite is flawed - in some seats they get close, or even win, where Labour alone would have zero chance - my home seat of Cheltenham is a prime example. Also, effectively disenfranchising the centre is *not* the way to go - politics is already too polarized!

Putting down your opponents is not a pleasant tactic though, and as Hilary Clinton previously found out, it can & does backfire...