Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

I know; this talk of sides is hilarious, almost as funny as 'Pete's' posts and The Expert's constant denial and counter claims. Adrian Mole had far more sense at 13 3/4 yrs of age, never mind 20+yrs of trading experience. I guess we only ended up here because Slovakia got dumped.

 

Some in the media report and some analyse news. If somebody says something they report it. Reporters don't judge what has been said. More experienced journalists do the analysis. You take the sum of information and make your own decisions.

 

I think most Tory voters voted Leave.

 

I do, but I'm amazed how many just take the soundbite, and don't look beyond it. It's often revealing to look at what isn't reported on, or why some seemingly non-articles take prominence when there are more interesting things going on elsewhere.

 

So they voted against the Party which is why it's currently in a mess and the next leader will most likely be someone who voted Remain.

Kind of ironic.

 

Why bother commenting if you don't have the facts to hand? That's another good rule to have.

 

Yes it is, a rule that you all would be wise to follow

 

It was about 50/50 actually - based on who they voted for in the last election...

 

That's the whole point. You've missed a lot of what has been said yet you try to make a judgement when you don't have the knowledge of what has been said. We've had a person on here bragging that he's wealthy but when I suggested he provides some evidence by posting a bank statement with name address and bank details redacted he was unable to. Another guy said there's no such thing as a UK constitution. Several of the more sensible people on here pointed out there was and gave evidence but he still denied it. Eventually he changed his tune and said he meant there was no written constitution within in one document.
Another guy calls men "love". I think it's a ploy to unsettle people. I doubt he is homosexual but he certainly has a creepy way of interacting.

 

Just to keep you factual, how about qoting one of my posts where I haven't dealt with the facts (at that time). It's a serious invitation, as I'm as bored with the blather as you see to be.

 

I'm struggling to get my head around the goings on in Labour.

As I understand it, the majority of labour politicians don't support Corbyn, but seemingly the membership do, but I don't see much effort in addressing that dilemma.

 

Some people can't understand what's important and what's not. To them - some things are "Good" and other things are "Bad".

 

I've sometimes wondered if parties were to the detriment of politics, as they polarise people, and have them supporting issues that they don't necessarily believe in. I think recent events have shown the flaw in my logic on that one.

 

How can they address it without incredible upheaval? The members either have to get rid of the MPs or the MPs have to insist on the members not electing the leader. If the MPs start getting deselected they will form another party and the voters will go with them.

 

Apparently the Labour Party have 60,000 new members to go along with the 300k plus members which have joined since Corbyn won his election. (just to note that the 250k mandate he received was bigger than both the Lib Dems and Conservative leaders combined.)

Many of the new members have stated support of Corbyn against the undemocratic coup organised by Portland House/Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair as the reason for joining. One of the CLP's is trying to deselect an MP because he is going against party members wishes and trying to oust the democratically elected leader.

There's also rallies supporting him up and down the country.

But then he's unpopular, out of touch and unelectable...

 

This is why I am a great believer in Transferable Vote. It was resoundingly defeated at the referendum on voting. The advantage of the system is that it takes power away from the parties and towards individuals. I think people voted against it because they were worried about consistently hung parliaments. That would be a problem in the short term but in the long term it would create a new kind of politics.

 

I have no idea. I think a split and a new party is possibly the best option for all sides. Sadly, I don't think that now is the right time to do it.

It needs a strong moderate to step forward that has enough bits from each side, and a strong personality to keep a temporary truce. I just can't see anyone capable. Maybe Andy Burnham?

 

After 300 pages, I doubt I've missed much... of any note.

 

He's unpopular and unelectable with voters.

 

The members are not going to accept anybody who stands against Corbyn. Until a new party is formed I can't see anybody effectively challenging the Conservatives.