Indeed, 52-48 really is an absurdly close result. In no way can it ever sensibly be described as 'the will of the people'.
Oi. 17 in every 46 people voted for it and only 40% of the majority has died since the vote. If that doesn't scream unanimous approval to throw us head first into obscurity I don't know what does.
Mmm.........had it been 52-48 in favour of staying in, I'm not convinced we would be hearing some of these things from some of you! Let's keep voting till you get the result you want............after all, it works for the undemocratic EU.
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Guess who said that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
We know you don't give a **** Col - you want your freedom to chose and dictate your own laws. Which ones exactly? Which foreigners do you want to keep out? The Somalians, Pakistanis, Ethiopians or the Poles, Danes, French, that you had the power to control any way? I wanted a Brexit, the EU had to wake up and change and I thought the UK would do a decent, professional job in getting out. Well, you've royally ****ed it, you're so **** that everyone in the EU knows you're going to take a helluva beating and now you've even emboldened the junker ****s even more. You're don't give a **** attitude is taking 65% of the U.K., to Hell in a handcart. I tell you what - I'd rather have the excellent Magrethe Vestager making my laws than the **** wit paramilitary ****s parading as politicians.
Support for Brexit varied around the country, so audience reaction varied on QT week to week. London venues were predominantly Remain. But this was not a weekly political program. This was held out as The BBC leaders' debate. A one-off before the election. The BBC and its agent ****ed up royally on audience selection imo
I'll take your word that it's hilarious, but the program lasted over an hour and I've never heard a more one sided audience. Which is supported by the fact that we've had a mea culpa from the BBC's agent.
IYO?. Well that clinches it for me. Did the politicial leaders all get their say? Yes. Was the audience unanimous in applauding all left wing speakers and heckling all right wingers? No. There was a spread of opinion in the audience. You can't always stack it in favour of the Tories. It isn't Fleet Street which you as a bastion of a politically independent free press surprisingly never condemn for their outrageous bias and manipulation or distortion of facts for political ends. Unless, I'm much mistaken, Murdoch hasn't bought up the BBC yet. There's still time for him to buy that for himself though and it will be interesting to see if the Tories on the relevant select committees stand in his way in his proposed takeover of Sky. Until then keep on moaning about the Beeb. Somebody will listen to what you say one day.
Even the left leaning New Statesman said it felt like the most left wing audience in any election debate. But, hey, carry on misleading yourself.
What's it matter what the audience is made up of? Surely it's what is said and then carried out (or not as the case may be) that sways ones vote.
We'll never know, because they weren't there. As well as Corbyn, the audience went wild for Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas - 13 MP's between them...
Just because they represent parties with few MPs doesn't mean they can't have good ideas. Lucas particularly came across well but I appreciate you can say pretty much what you want in her position. There must have been some there. ComRes wouldn't have ballsed up so much to have an entirely left wing audience. These things are normally full of old fuds. Maybe Rudd's performance was just crap or the Tories, like the rest of us, were put out by May's non-appearance.
Yeah, it's impossible to comment on exact numbers but both Rudd and Nuttall were either treated with derision or silence by the audience. Rudd didn't do badly, and even taking into account the difficulty of a spokesman/woman for incumbent government, the audience was clearly skewed. It may have been more cock-up than deliberate. For example, five of the seven parties were left wing. If you allow half the number of Tory supporters than are represented by two insignificant parties together, Green and Plaid Cymru, the result will be very odd. Under the Comres rules applied, if Monster Raving Looney had been represented, they would have been allowed the same number of supporters (if they exist) as the party of government. The result was that no other election debate has ever appeared even slightly as imbalanced. I imagine it won't happen again.
Do you know why the DUP weren't represented? Seems odd given they're bigger than Plaid (I'm basing that on absolute number of votes in 2015). Were they invited? Surely that's fair though- 7 parties on the stage so the audience is split in seven. Nuttall will always be unpopular even with most Tories, not helped by the fact the bloke is a moron.
I believe DUP and Sinn Fein were excluded because they don't compete with the 7 represented. It's virtually a separate political system over in NI. I don't think the seven split on the audience is right. Look at another way. Corbyn become prime minister with 350 MP's. Farage leads UKIP and is finally elected, the only UKIP MP. The next election debate, Farage has the same number of supporters present as Jez. Doesn't sound right to me
