• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UK Elections

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You are still assuming one issue voting.

Incorrect and baseless assertion. You seem to be missing the point. I doesn't matter what issues people voted on, a party can still get an unassailable majority when most people voted for other parties.

You are assuming.

Assertion.

Citation.

Vote Leave campaign broke electoral law

You are still making an assumption that people are one issue voters.

Assertion.
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
It is funny that all those Labour MPs that have supported Corbyn and his policies to the hilt are now saying what I have been saying all along.
But these are desperate times for Labour MPs - unsurprising that some of them would, at this point, resort to emotionally charged and politically hysterical outbursts - the real question is why would somebody talk like that "all along"?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
But these are desperate times for Labour MPs - unsurprising that some of them would, at this point, resort to emotionally charged and politically hysterical outbursts - the real question is why would somebody talk like that "all along"?

If you still don’t know the answer to that, I can’t help you.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Incorrect and baseless assertion. You seem to be missing the point. I doesn't matter what issues people voted on, a party can still get an unassailable majority when most people voted for other parties.

Nope. You are using a point you can not provide evidence for as per my example.



Assertion.

Wrong. You provided no evidence as per my example.





So?



Assertion.

Wrong as per my example
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You are using a point you can not provide evidence for as per my example.

You seem to have completely forgotten what the conversation is about. I made two distinct points, one about the voting system allowing a minority of people to elect a government with a large majority (regardless of why people voted), and the other about the country now being taken in a direction the majority do not want. I also said that the electoral system, lies, and broken electoral law were some of the reasons.

The first is a simple fact, the second I have provided evidence for. You keep on wittering on about my assuming what issue(s) people voted on, which is only relevant to the second point and then it formed only part of the evidence (in that there was a correlation) that together support the claim.


You asked for a citation. More evidence that you're not paying attention...
 

Shad

Veteran Member
You seem to have completely forgotten what the conversation is about. I made two distinct points, one about the voting system allowing a minority of people to elect a government with a large majority (regardless of why people voted), and the other about the country now being taken in a direction the majority do not want. I also said that the electoral system, lies, and broken electoral law were some of the reasons.

You are conflating political parties with the system. You are assuming a direction without evidence.

The first is a simple fact, the second I have provided evidence for.

Nope. Sloppy logic and post hoc rationalization for that logic

You keep on wittering on about my assuming what issue(s) people voted on, which is only relevant to the second point and then it formed only part of the evidence (in that there was a correlation) that together support the claim.

Which is still an assumption.



You asked for a citation.

For the violation you claimed.

More evidence that you're not paying attention...

Wrong.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You are conflating political parties with the system.

What system and in what way?

You are assuming a direction without evidence.

So are you now going to argue that the Johnson government isn't going to take us out of the EU?

Sloppy logic and post hoc rationalization for that logic

In what way and about what?

Which is still an assumption.

Drivel. I have given you the evidence.

You're obviously not serious about debating this properly, so have a nice life....
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I remember three months ago when former Labour voters said they didn't believe the party's plans to spend £500bn were affordable, so they voted for the Tories instead.
Today the Tories announced £600bn of capital spending & billions more for current spending.

Luckily the Tories have a Magic Money Tree that is not available to Labour
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I remember three months ago when former Labour voters said they didn't believe the party's plans to spend £500bn were affordable, so they voted for the Tories instead.
Today the Tories announced £600bn of capital spending & billions more for current spending.

Luckily the Tories have a Magic Money Tree that is not available to Labour
Good point!

But Cummings has his hand up Sunak's ar5e, that's fairly evident.
 
Top