Seems as if Mrs may is going to announce a snap election for June, needs 2/3 of the commons to proceed..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39627690

Fred

Good news, should give the Brexit supporters are clear lead in parliament.

Just announced live from No:10, the parliament has to vote to agree by a 2/3 majority, tomorrow afternoon.

Corbyn has apparently announced he will support the vote.

He better hope the polling numbers get better otherwise he's getting spanked. This is the result I got from the electoral calculus site with the latest Comres poll numbers:

CON-402 Seats (+71)
LAB-160 Seats (-72)
LIB-9 Seats (+1)
UKIP-0 Seats (-1)
GREEN-1 Seat (+0)
SNP-56 Seats (+0)
PLAID-4 Seats (+0)
Northern Irish Parties (18 seats between them)

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... ndary=2015

The last time Labour ended up with a smaller number of seats than that was 1931 when you had a split in the party and their leader was booted out but then lead a giant coalition government propped up by 470 Conservative MPs and other parties.

Polls narrow and can be wrong but it really doesn't look good for Corbyn. A result like that starts eating into the inner city and urban strong holds of the Labour Party. Even a narrower result could still end up giving the Tories a reinforced majority and seeing Corbyn booted out quicker than you can say "You're Fired".

It gives the conservatives a chance to replace all MPs not 100% behind the Brexit and this would strengthen the British position in the fight with the EU.

Its a smart move. TM knows she can win. Ken Clarke a Europhile MP will perhaps be replaced.

Its a smart move. TM knows she can win. Ken Clarke a Europhile MP will perhaps be replaced.

Arion640 wrote:

Its a smart move. TM knows she can win. Ken Clarke a Europhile MP will perhaps be replaced.

Ken Clarke will not be replaced. Despite him being a strong supporter of the EU, his is a Tory grandee and well respected Parliamentarian and very popular with his constituents.

Also with his business connections, a very good fund raiser for the Conservatives.

Should he choose not to stand for re-election, then that is his personal choice, and would be made a "Lord" as a matter of principal.

Aesma wrote:

Is calling an election like that, with a very short campaign, when you want (preferably when your opponents are weak), considered perfectly democratic, or does it cause debate ?

I'm guessing that's why they need 2/3rds of Parliament to approve it. And the markets seem to think it's a great move. GBPUSD is up 1 cent.

Aesma wrote:

Is calling an election like that, with a very short campaign, when you want (preferably when your opponents are weak), considered perfectly democratic, or does it cause debate ?

It would have been put to the Electoral Commission, on what is the quickest timescale to hold a general election.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

They would have given the earliest dates possible to get everything arranged and in place for a General Election. It's an independent body, and works under these Acts.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
Electoral Administration Act 2006
Political Parties and Elections Act 2009
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Act 2011

I'm guessing that's why they need 2/3rds of Parliament to approve it. And the markets seem to think it's a great move.

When we had a coalition Govt (Conservative and Lib Dems) a fixed term parliament act was agreed to stop one of the coalition members pulling out and causing a general election.

The parliament needs a 2/3rds majority to over ride the fixed term act,

Aesma wrote:

Is calling an election like that, with a very short campaign, when you want (preferably when your opponents are weak), considered perfectly democratic, or does it cause debate ?

The vote tomorrow is because the election is meant to be every 5 years, so you need the approval of parliament to go ahead with it outside that time period. Otherwise, democracy is what it is. If the rules allow it then it's fine. I'm sure there will be some who will be going through the agendas and why's and wherefore's of it all... timing, Brexit, Scotland, weak opposition, etc, etc.

I expect everyone will be happy with a short campaign rather than a long drawn out smoke and mirrors media campaign. The smoke and mirrors will probably be much the same, just less.

She who dares wins I guess. Pretty ballsy but if you're going into a messy divorce you might as wells engineer the strongest hand you can.

I really would appreciate an abbreviated bullet point history of Labour over the past 40-50 years from one of our British colleagues, how they got to this miserable state is simply incredible. Old Maggie must be doing pirouettes while Denis quaffs another gin bomb.

seahawk wrote:

It gives the conservatives a chance to replace all MPs not 100% behind the Brexit and this would strengthen the British position in the fight with the EU.

In reality, it doesn't. The only way they could achieve that would be for the central Conservative party to deselect them as candidates (which could be very unpopular with the voters in the constituency, which in turn could result in the 'sacked' MP running and winning as an independent).

Having a much larger majority in Parliament would give the Conservative Government the confidence that they can win any Brexit-related vote (which is what this is really all about).

Of course, they actually have to win that majority, but that seems quite likely given the current state of UK politics - UKIP is now irrelevant; Labour is a joke and, IMHO, unelectable; Lib Dems are unlikely to play a decisive role. Ironically (great for those of us that like irony), an SNP near or clean sweep in Scotland will almost certainly guarantee a Conservative victory because it will deny Labour many more seats that it does the Conservatives.

I think some on the sane branch of the Labour Party will secretly be thanking TM for this. The one result that can be expected from this is that Labour will be hammered and Jeremy Corbyn (if he has any decency) will resign. It's going to leave the Labour Party in turmoil for quite a while longer, until can come along, hoover up the debris and stick it together again.

The Lib Dems will probably do better this time and may also benefit from Labour's meltdown. Other parties like the Greens may be do as well, but I expect the Tories to be the big winners from Labour's problems. I really don't think the Tories will conduct a witch-hunt of pro-Europe people in the party. The position is clear: the people voted for it and the government of the day has to deliver it, whether they like it or not.

Frankly, May would be foolish not to call an early election. As a relatively new PM, she needs her own mandate and the by-product is putting Labour even deeper into the mire and then, having a stronger parliamentary mandate, to push through whatever legislation is needed

wingman wrote:

I really would appreciate an abbreviated bullet point history of Labour over the past 40-50 years from one of our British colleagues, how they got to this miserable state is simply incredible. Old Maggie must be doing pirouettes while Denis quaffs another gin bomb.

Others may have deeper insights, but from my (non-Labour supporter) perspective Labour became unelectable while Michael Foot (aka Worzel Gummidge) was leader. IMHO, there are a lot of parallels with Jeremy Corben (left-wing, in favour of nationalising services, wanting to tax the rich* heavily, nuclear disarmament). He was followed by Neil Kinnock who was leader through most of the Thatcher years and even managed to lose an election to John Major in 1992, when Labour famously celebrated their election 'victory' the night before, only to have their face slapped on election day.

It took Tony Blair three years to change Labour into "New Labour" a much less left-wing party (though they'd still be pretty left-wing by American standards!), to get them re-elected after four successive Conservative Governments. His policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan eventually led to his downfall and, IMHO, led to Labour in-fighting between those wanting a modern centrist party and those wanting to return to Labour's 1970s-style roots (a left-wing, union dominated party).

And that's pretty much where they still are today, IMHO. They have a leader who would happily return us to the days of the late 1970s. I think they're unelectable with Corben as leader.


*Labour's definition of what constitutes "rich" is normally much lower than most people's and often includes the top-half of what could be described as the 'middle classes'. It's an election loser.

So all the months of 'I won't go early', 'we need stability' etc, Mayhem suddenly (I do think THIS part is true) decides to go for an early poll.
There are local elections on 4th May, if Labour did badly there would be further pressure on Corbyn to step down, the Tories want Corbyn as leader (something his supporters never seem to pick up on).
But I don't really think this is about Corbyn for the most part, May has to try and do this whole Brexit screw up (it can at best end in being quite damaging - not least to many who voted for it), however I think she is too pragmatic to want a 'hard Brexit'. However the headbangers in her party do want this cutting off your nose to spite your face policy, have undue influence when you have a small majority.

This is, for example, the only possible explanation of her Brexit Team. Boris Johnson - reckless, too ambitious for his own good (remember he only supported Brexit as he thought a near win for Remain would undermine Cameron enough to give him a shot as PM - hence his haunted look on June 24th last year), Liam Fox - nasty and stupid in equal measure but despite being sacked as Minister of Defence in 2011 for basically corruption, has been lobbying until last year for another job and David Davis, a man capable of contradicting himself in a sentence - though he is the least toxic of the three.
They are only there I think to appease the headbangers, however it has become clear at this early stage even, that a class of kids doing a 'Junior UN' class could run rings around them. May I think has got this. Those Civil Servants warnings of how difficult it will be are ringing more true now.

If as expected May wins a bigger majority on her own terms she can (hopefully) sack all three of them and put in people who want to do the best job they can despite it being a match weighted 27-1. Whatever their views on Brexit, though the less dogmatic the better.
Despite all the BS from our tabloid rags, most EU nations do not want to do us over for the sake of it (perhaps these papers think the whole world thinks as they do, have their values?)

But Mrs May is being less than honest when she bleated from the steps of No.10 about all the opposition she has faced. What opposition? Like when Corbyn marched his MP's, mostly unwillingly, to vote on Article 50 with the government? MP's are supposed to represent their seats, if in they represent ones in the referendum that voted to Remain they should be free to express that in the Commons, this cuts across all parties, including plenty of Tory seats - look how they lost a very safe one in December, Hard Brexit MP forces a by-election and the Remain majority voters went with the Lib Dems.

Though the polls look great for the Tories and Corbyn is by far the worst leader Labour had ever had, Ramsay MacDonald included, I would be cautious. Another GE just two years after the last one, a year after the Referendum, might depress turnout, might make people vote much more tactically - especially if they are unhappy with either Brexit or just a Hard Brexit.

In 1974, in the midst of widespread strikes, power shortages caused by these strikes, the 1973 oil price hike, Tory PM Heath went to the country early on a 'who governs Britain?' ticket. It was so close the result was a Labour minority government. If you have to ask 'who governs' when you are PM, the answer is likely to be 'not you anymore'.
But in 1974 Labour was much stronger and had an experienced leader who was PM from 1964-70. So May will very likely win, she might be doing Labour a favour as if they do badly enough for even Corbyn to admit he has to go and before his right hand man (my MP as it happens), can fix it so only another from the old hard left can replace him, then if they pick wisely could be in with a shot in 2022. Because if Brexit does not go well, does negatively effect enough people, that will be on May. After all, the mandate she claims to want today is all about that issue.

The EU should quickly point out that the British won't get a "time-out" on the 2 year clock because of their internal politics. The clock still ticks whether they can focus on the external front or not.

Derico wrote:

The EU should quickly point out that the British won't get a "time-out" on the 2 year clock because of their internal politics. The clock still ticks whether they can focus on the external front or not.

The British should quickly point out to the EU that they haven't asked for time out. The whole point of this election, IMO, is to get the whole thing sorted better than it would have been in the same time frame with whingers and whiners on your side.

Derico wrote:

The EU should quickly point out that the British won't get a "time-out" on the 2 year clock because of their internal politics. The clock still ticks whether they can focus on the external front or not.

They do not need to. The UK does not want or neither has it asked for time out. Elections will not disrupt the process. TM has called this to give her a stronger position at home. Even many in Labour are happy this is going on as it will further weaken their leader.

I bet France and Germany would get timeouts for their elections.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I bet France and Germany would get timeouts for their elections.

Surely you are not suggesting the EU would favour some nations, but not others?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I bet France and Germany would get timeouts for their elections.

Any evidence? Or drinking too much of the UK Tabloid/UKIP Kool Aid?
(This whole whiny boo-hooing about how these terrible Europeans are sooooo unFAIR to us, really has made me rather ashamed to be British at times. Quite apart from the fact it's total BS).

OK, let me put it this way.
Do you agree that the most fundamental role of a government is the protection of it's citizens? From danger both internally and externally? That is something a sovereign UK government must take responsibility for?
I do, I suspect just about everyone does too.
So there is no way you would ever pool that responsibility?

But we did, in 1949, when we joined NATO. In fact though of course the US was always the biggest member of NATO the idea was largely the work of the UK Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin, a Bulldog like member of Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government.
Now I do not see too many anti EU types also being for us leaving NATO - the flakier UKIP loons excepted. Some on the old hard left.
But I thought they were for the UK being totally sovereign in all matters?

And that's before we even get to the number of times external economic events forced a change in UK government policy.
(Back to security, can anyone explain why the Hard Brexit crew want us to also sever security links with EU nations? I suppose with not much terrorism going on we don't need it........)

GDB wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I bet France and Germany would get timeouts for their elections.

Any evidence? Or drinking too much of the UK Tabloid/UKIP Kool Aid?
(This whole whiny boo-hooing about how these terrible Europeans are sooooo unFAIR to us, really has made me rather ashamed to be British at times. Quite apart from the fact it's total BS).

OK, let me put it this way.
Do you agree that the most fundamental role of a government is the protection of it's citizens? From danger both internally and externally? That is something a sovereign UK government must take responsibility for?
I do, I suspect just about everyone does too.
So there is no way you would ever pool that responsibility?

But we did, in 1949, when we joined NATO. In fact though of course the US was always the biggest member of NATO the idea was largely the work of the UK Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin, a Bulldog like member of Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government.
Now I do not see too many anti EU types also being for us leaving NATO - the flakier UKIP loons excepted. Some on the old hard left.
But I thought they were for the UK being totally sovereign in all matters?

And that's before we even get to the number of times external economic events forced a change in UK government policy.
(Back to security, can anyone explain why the Hard Brexit crew want us to also sever security links with EU nations? I suppose with not much terrorism going on we don't need it........)

I'm not sure I can explain it to your satisfaction. From what I read it was simply a bargaining chip. We have the best - GCHQ - which in turn shares information with EU neighbours on a certain level, the Eu want to continue this arrangement. We want XYZ in return. It's something to bargain with. Not saying it's fair, logical or best practice, just two sides bartering A for B. I don't think the severing comes into it unless the one side of the equation turn their backs. All this talk about "we can't have our cake and eat it too" perhaps should also read, "you can't have our intelligence and eat it too."

Well the EU has also said no Cherry Picking, no access to the single market unless freedom of movement, etc etc etc. don't see much of anyone saying the EU should not have those negotiation points going in... Bottom line is that everything is going to be up for negotiation whether we like it or not, those on the Remain side who want a Soft Exit will see the UK pay through their nose for it, the more public pressure they put on the UK government for specific access to the market, the stronger they make the EU nations hand in the pot.
In my opinion, the next two years will be filled with much acrimony, and since all 20+ members have to vote individually, I will be shocked if any final deal is done in the next two years, will be hell if the EU powers say everything must be bundled together.
Now if after the election government, the UK announced they were going WTO across the board, it would bring certainty to the process and the country as a whole would get down to the business of what is required to once again run one's country. I suspect that a lot of that work will only get done at the end of the two year period when some deals fail. Yes I know that ministers have already told public servants to start preparing plans for all manner of changes, but...............

Well if the UK does not have freedom of movement with the EU, how exactly does information then pass between them, will the EU pass information on its citizens to the UK, take a look at the issue with the USA when they wanted pax information prior to flight leavings the EU. No question there is a security situation between the EU and the UK which has to be negotiated. A number of incidents on the continent have been committed by persons who are in the EU legally, a number of them were also already known to security forces on the continent, how much of that information would they be able to pass to the UK if a hard Brexit is put in place, current EU laws do protect those individuals. The UK has said they intend to ditch the EU courts, those courts are responsible for a lot of the rights individuals presently enjoy in the EU, so how does that transfer in Brexit, it will not be an automatic process.

Aesma wrote:

I think the suggestion that security ties could be cut was ludicrous and totally removed from reality, so it was a meaningless threat nobody took seriously.

However more seriously I don't know what makes the UK think it has some kind of great expertise on Islamism the rest of the EU lacks. Wasn't the UK some years ago literally harboring terrorists that France for example didn't want on its soil, letting them prosper and preach totally freely in London itself ? Does it have really come to grips with the reality of radical Islam even today ? I and many others have our doubts. As an example I've seen a lot of tabloids complaining that the European Court of Human Rights prevented the UK from expelling radicals, and that the UK should leave the EU over that alone (forgetting the fact that the court isn't even part of the EU, and that Russia and Turkey are members). In reality it's British law and justice systems that cause this. France expels the same people without any trouble, it doesn't even get mentioned in the news.

We have security expertise.

We spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on security, be that through GCHQ or the domestic and foreign intelligence services.

Outside of the USA, we have probably the best security services in the world.

Most terrorists who we couldn't deport were using the European Human Rights* act to stay within the UK, whose legal expenses were paid for by the taxpayer using legal aid.

*The right to a family life (because they had partners/girlfriends and children who weren't subject to criminal investigation and weren't being deported).

Dano1977 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think the suggestion that security ties could be cut was ludicrous and totally removed from reality, so it was a meaningless threat nobody took seriously.

However more seriously I don't know what makes the UK think it has some kind of great expertise on Islamism the rest of the EU lacks. Wasn't the UK some years ago literally harboring terrorists that France for example didn't want on its soil, letting them prosper and preach totally freely in London itself ? Does it have really come to grips with the reality of radical Islam even today ? I and many others have our doubts. As an example I've seen a lot of tabloids complaining that the European Court of Human Rights prevented the UK from expelling radicals, and that the UK should leave the EU over that alone (forgetting the fact that the court isn't even part of the EU, and that Russia and Turkey are members). In reality it's British law and justice systems that cause this. France expels the same people without any trouble, it doesn't even get mentioned in the news.

We have security expertise.

We spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on security, be that through GCHQ or the domestic and foreign intelligence services.

Outside of the USA, we have probably the best security services in the world.

Most terrorists who we couldn't deport were using the European Human Rights* act to stay within the UK, whose legal expenses were paid for by the taxpayer using legal aid.

*The right to a family life (because they had partners/girlfriends and children who weren't subject to criminal investigation and weren't being deported).

I am glad that example was brought up, when she was Home Secretary May finally managed to get a notorious hate preacher deported after 10 years. A whole bunch of her predecessors had been trying.
but! In a very similar case in France they sent one packing within months, yet France is also an EU member, so what was so different about the UK? (France will have it's share of lawyers coining it in trying to milk the process too).
The answer is obvious, competence. Across the board.
Much of the anti EU feeling in the UK has been over decades stirred by not just parts of the press but politicians keen to load the blame or their screw ups on those foreigners across the Channel and beyond.
It's always been BS, however time and again it has worked.
Now look where we are.

OA260 wrote:

Derico wrote:

The EU should quickly point out that the British won't get a "time-out" on the 2 year clock because of their internal politics. The clock still ticks whether they can focus on the external front or not.

They do not need to. The UK does not want or neither has it asked for time out. Elections will not disrupt the process. TM has called this to give her a stronger position at home. Even many in Labour are happy this is going on as it will further weaken their leader.

The prediction is that the Tories will sweep and increase their majority. But what if results fall short and they only pick up 1-2 seats (or end up losing seats)? Will TM call another election yet again when some Tories who are neutral on Brexit come out and refuse to go along with her demands?

Remember how Greece underwent two elections in a year because Tsipras wanted to extend his mandate and resulted in a less than stellar result? In other words, he did not reach the absolute majority he sought.

So far all TM has said is that it is for Brexit, unless her party decides to put additional items on the agenda, this should be a pretty simple choice, bearing in mind that those opposed wanted the entire government plan laid out in minute detail so that the country could decide whether
it was in their best interest, to heck with the other party to the negotiations.

First the opposition was against Brexit, then after the referendum they stated the electorate was voting for soft versus hard Brexit, since it is an election, I am more interested in seeing Labour's Brexit platform, hopefully by now, they have decided that Bexit is what the people wanted.

Aesma wrote:

Well that's the other problem, the referendum was a close one, so pandering to remainers is pandering to almost half the electorate.

No, it's pandering to almost half those who bothered to vote. The electorate is rather bigger than that.

LAH1 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well that's the other problem, the referendum was a close one, so pandering to remainers is pandering to almost half the electorate.

No, it's pandering to almost half those who bothered to vote. The electorate is rather bigger than that.

The EU vote had a higher turnout that the last general elections.

JJJ wrote:

LAH1 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well that's the other problem, the referendum was a close one, so pandering to remainers is pandering to almost half the electorate.

No, it's pandering to almost half those who bothered to vote. The electorate is rather bigger than that.

The EU vote had a higher turnout that the last general elections.

Yes it was, the turnout was 72%. But the "pandering" is still not to the whole electorate, only to those who voted. You can hardly pander to people if you have no idea how they would have voted.

According to one paper I read, the main demographic for people to "Remain" in the EU was in the 18-36 age bracket.

By coincidence, it was the 18-36 age bracket that couldn't be bothered to get their backsides down to a polling station or send back the postal vote (which they would have had for at least 2 weeks previous).

I guess they were all to busy sipping frothy coffees while taking selfies for instagram or mugbook. But the next day took to twitter on how the oldies have screwed them over.....

LAH1 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

LAH1 wrote:

No, it's pandering to almost half those who bothered to vote. The electorate is rather bigger than that.

The EU vote had a higher turnout that the last general elections.

Yes it was, the turnout was 72%. But the "pandering" is still not to the whole electorate, only to those who voted. You can hardly pander to people if you have no idea how they would have voted.

I'm pretty sure that the "voted on the EU referendum" and "will probably vote on the snap election" have a significant (+90%) degree of overlap.

I'd be surprised if the election gets turnout numbers significantly higher than the referendum.

UKIP's only MP, Douglas Carswell has announced he'll be standing down and will vote Tory at the election.

As I thought previously, UKIP have potentially peaked and now that A50 has been triggered, will lose votes to the Tories.

Aesma wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

According to one paper I read, the main demographic for people to "Remain" in the EU was in the 18-36 age bracket.

By coincidence, it was the 18-36 age bracket that couldn't be bothered to get their backsides down to a polling station or send back the postal vote (which they would have had for at least 2 weeks previous).

I guess they were all to busy sipping frothy coffees while taking selfies for instagram or mugbook. But the next day took to twitter on how the oldies have screwed them over.....

While I don't excuse them you have to admit this is a problem with our democracies, and Trump is another good example. More and more people get swayed by social media, get their information there, make their own "information" there, yet the vote itself is still that old school offline system.

I'm old and know what a pencil in a voting booth looks like, however I'm not a Luddite when it comes to technology. My fear of some people being able to access a vote simply by pressing their iphone screen and not actually making any effort (taking a trip to the polling station) is that they would not treat it seriously enough and we'd all be down the crapper. I know you already think the UK did that anyway with the referendum but I still think that, however people voted, they actually made an effort to do so and gave it a modicum of thought.
It takes no thought to access your screen, you might at least do so on the 5 minute walk. And that applies to all age groups.

Hmmm, an educated electorate, in the 21st century.....are you nuts????

Theresa May may be looking at Margaret Thatcher's 1983 crushing victory as a goal for this campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983

Dano1977 wrote:

According to one paper I read, the main demographic for people to "Remain" in the EU was in the 18-36 age bracket.

By coincidence, it was the 18-36 age bracket that couldn't be bothered to get their backsides down to a polling station or send back the postal vote (which they would have had for at least 2 weeks previous).

I guess they were all to busy sipping frothy coffees while taking selfies for instagram or mugbook. But the next day took to twitter on how the oldies have screwed them over.....

Turnout in the EU ref in that age group I understand was around 60% much higher than in the previous year's GE.
Given how we have constitutional practice based on precedent, then odd that Cameron did not do, as happened in the 2014 Indy Ref, extend the vote to 16-17 year olds, he might still be PM. He allowed it even though it helped the SNP.

But he made it harder for groups in the younger age bracket to register in the first place, via deliberate legislation, Cameron no doubt saw this as an advantage in the GE.
Since it is generally agreed across the board that we have a serious housing shortage, (lowest building since the 1920's), it is worth remembering that Cameron opposed affordable social housing as 'it created Labour voters'.

To turn your stereotype on it's head, why did a bunch of coffin dodgers bother to unhook their colostomy bags and vote for things some of them won't see happen and also screw the futures of those younger than them. They can bitch about 'all these foreigners' but who are more likely to be employed caring for them in hospital or wiping their arses in a care home? The very people they want gone.
That paragraph is unfair, rather nonsensical, should not be taken too seriously, the same applies to your stereotypes.

par13del wrote:

Hmmm, an educated electorate, in the 21st century.....are you nuts????

Politicians like to think of the majority of voters as "Mushrooms"


Kept in the dark and fed on sh-t

Dano1977 wrote:

According to one paper I read, the main demographic for people to "Remain" in the EU was in the 18-36 age bracket.

By coincidence, it was the 18-36 age bracket that couldn't be bothered to get their backsides down to a polling station or send back the postal vote (which they would have had for at least 2 weeks previous).

I guess they were all to busy sipping frothy coffees while taking selfies for instagram or mugbook. But the next day took to twitter on how the oldies have screwed them over.....

Ridiculous really that many young people are too lazy to exercise a right for which their forebears fought and died. A little research suggests that in 2015, there were just over 50,000 polling stations in the United Kingdom. The figure for the US is slightly harder to obtain, but seems to be somewhere around 100,000, despite the population being approximately five times bigger than that of the UK. So it seems like the UK is saturated with polling stations - it must take a tremendous level of disinterest/laziness to avoid them all!

That 's strange, in France with around the same numbers of people we had more than 85 000 polling stations last election.

Olddog wrote:

That 's strange, in France with around the same numbers of people we had more than 85 000 polling stations last election.

Do you have postal voting in France?

We decided long time ago than postal voting was too easy to abuse, same for internet voting today. We use proxy voting if needed.