Boris Johnson: Why is a proven liar in power?

[Oldjohnw]

It is looking like David Cameron's Big Society dream, where the state disappears and is merely a commissioner of private services is found terribly wanting.

[carpetcleaner]

It is looking like David Cameron's Big Society dream, where the state disappears and is merely a commissioner of private services is found terribly wanting.

The state is always just a commissioner of private services. All its work is done by private citizens who sell their labour to it.

[Oldjohnw]

It is looking like David Cameron's Big Society dream, where the state disappears and is merely a commissioner of private services is found terribly wanting.

The state is always just a commissioner of private services. All its work is done by private citizens who sell their labour to it.

You know what I mean.

[Cunobelin]

The Conservatives got the most votes in 365 constituencies so they have 365 MPs. That's how our system works. The people don't want PR. Get used to it.

Just like you were used to it when your side won elections.

Please accept my apologies if you are one of those incredibly rare people who campaigned for PR while your side won elections, and are not one of those much more common people who only pipe up about the matter because they are increasingly disappointed and frustrated by the uneducated masses voting for the wrong candidates, so indicating that democracy is not working as well as it did when their side was victorious.

Another deeply flawed claim, the truth is that most people in those 365 constituencies did nor want a Tory MP

I'm so happy we no longer send MEPs to Brussels and Strasburg.

Nobody wanted them. Hardly anyone voted for the successful candidates and nobody ever knew who they were with the exception of Mr Farage.

Did anyone ever hear someone saying 'I'll write to my MEP about that'? No. Nobody knew or cared who their MEP was.

So let’s get this right

If an MP is voted in it is an endorsement, everyone wanted that MP and Party

Yet if an MEP is voted in is not an endorsement, no-one wanted that MEP


You are again arguing against your own claims

In both cases it is unequivocally evident that people knew their MEP and cared enough to turn out and vote. The turnout was 51% not far from the average 59% for Genear Elections

Your arguments are again deeply flawed

[Oldjohnw]

A few weeks after a Queen's speech in which it was proposed that early release of prisoners would be reduced, it is now being increased

Events, dear boy, events, to misquote Harold McMillan.

[carpetcleaner]

Another deeply flawed claim, the truth is that most people in those 365 constituencies did nor want a Tory MP

I'm so happy we no longer send MEPs to Brussels and Strasburg.

Nobody wanted them. Hardly anyone voted for the successful candidates and nobody ever knew who they were with the exception of Mr Farage.

Did anyone ever hear someone saying 'I'll write to my MEP about that'? No. Nobody knew or cared who their MEP was.

So let’s get this right

If an MP is voted in it is an endorsement, everyone wanted that MP and Party

Yet if an MEP is voted in is not an endorsement, no-one wanted that MEP


You are again arguing against your own claims

In both cases it is unequivocally evident that people knew their MEP and cared enough to turn out and vote. The turnout was 51% not far from the average 59% for Genear Elections

Your arguments are again deeply flawed

Could you please list all constituencies where the elected MEP got the majority of the vote?

Remember when Pete75 asked me 'Could you please list all 365 constituencies where the Conservative candidate got the majority of the vote?'

I now employing the same argument as I noticed you didn't object to Pete75 using it.

EU elections have a low turnout.

[Psamathe]

I'm so happy we no longer send MEPs to Brussels and Strasburg.

Nobody wanted them. Hardly anyone voted for the successful candidates and nobody ever knew who they were with the exception of Mr Farage.

Did anyone ever hear someone saying 'I'll write to my MEP about that'? No. Nobody knew or cared who their MEP was.

So let’s get this right

If an MP is voted in it is an endorsement, everyone wanted that MP and Party

Yet if an MEP is voted in is not an endorsement, no-one wanted that MEP


You are again arguing against your own claims

In both cases it is unequivocally evident that people knew their MEP and cared enough to turn out and vote. The turnout was 51% not far from the average 59% for Genear Elections

Your arguments are again deeply flawed

Could you please list all constituencies where the elected MEP got the majority of the vote?

Remember when Pete75 asked me 'Could you please list all 365 constituencies where the Conservative candidate got the majority of the vote?'

I now employing the same argument as I noticed you didn't object to Pete75 using it.

EU elections have a low turnout.

It's a proportional voting system designed so the outcome better reflects the votes cast. You are looking at it in First Past The Post terms which it isn't.

If you regard turnout is important and electoral results should be assessed in terms of turnout then you should remember that only 35% of the electorate voted to leave the EU.

Ian

[carpetcleaner]

So let’s get this right

If an MP is voted in it is an endorsement, everyone wanted that MP and Party

Yet if an MEP is voted in is not an endorsement, no-one wanted that MEP


You are again arguing against your own claims

In both cases it is unequivocally evident that people knew their MEP and cared enough to turn out and vote. The turnout was 51% not far from the average 59% for Genear Elections

Your arguments are again deeply flawed

Could you please list all constituencies where the elected MEP got the majority of the vote?

Remember when Pete75 asked me 'Could you please list all 365 constituencies where the Conservative candidate got the majority of the vote?'

I now employing the same argument as I noticed you didn't object to Pete75 using it.

EU elections have a low turnout.

It's a proportional voting system designed so the outcome better reflects the votes cast. You are looking at it in First Past The Post terms which it isn't.

If you regard turnout is important and electoral results should be assessed in terms of turnout then you should remember that only 35% of the electorate voted to leave the EU.

Ian

In most of our EU elections the biggest proportion of votes were the ones which were not cast. Who represented that majority, the ones who didn't want MEPS or didn't care if we had MEPs or not?

Even during the Brexit affair when the EU was the top news item day after day there was only a 51% turnout in the EU elections, and 30% of that 51% was support for UKIP, a party dedicated to Brexit.

[Cunobelin]

I'm so happy we no longer send MEPs to Brussels and Strasburg.

Nobody wanted them. Hardly anyone voted for the successful candidates and nobody ever knew who they were with the exception of Mr Farage.

Did anyone ever hear someone saying 'I'll write to my MEP about that'? No. Nobody knew or cared who their MEP was.

So let’s get this right

If an MP is voted in it is an endorsement, everyone wanted that MP and Party

Yet if an MEP is voted in is not an endorsement, no-one wanted that MEP


You are again arguing against your own claims

In both cases it is unequivocally evident that people knew their MEP and cared enough to turn out and vote. The turnout was 51% not far from the average 59% for Genear Elections


Your arguments are again deeply flawed

Could you please list all constituencies where the elected MEP got the majority of the vote?

Why?

This was your disproven claim about MPs, no-one has made such a claim about MEPs, I am quite happy to recognise that (just like MPs)they would not have a majority if the vote as despite your earlier claims, that is the reality

Remember when Pete75 asked me 'Could you please list all 365 constituencies where the Conservative candidate got the majority of the vote?'

Yes you were being asked to substantiate your erroneous claims

I now employing the same argument as I noticed you didn't object to Pete75 using it.

No you aren’t. You were asked to substantiate a claim you had made

You are now asking me to substantiate a claim that was NOT made, a ridiculous claim that you are using the same argument ... you simply are not

EU elections have a low turnout

You made a claim that there was little interest the facts prove that 51% were interested enough to vote disproves your claim... simples

[Cunobelin]

Could you please list all constituencies where the elected MEP got the majority of the vote?

Remember when Pete75 asked me 'Could you please list all 365 constituencies where the Conservative candidate got the majority of the vote?'

I now employing the same argument as I noticed you didn't object to Pete75 using it.

EU elections have a low turnout.

It's a proportional voting system designed so the outcome better reflects the votes cast. You are looking at it in First Past The Post terms which it isn't.

If you regard turnout is important and electoral results should be assessed in terms of turnout then you should remember that only 35% of the electorate voted to leave the EU.

Ian

In most of our EU elections the biggest proportion of votes were the ones which were not cast. Who represented that majority, the ones who didn't want MEPS or didn't care if we had MEPs or not?

In the 2019 European election the 51% of voter voted, the biggest proportion was the vote cast... your claims are still flawed

Even during the Brexit affair when the EU was the top news item day after day there was only a 51% turnout in the EU elections, and 30% of that 51% was support for UKIP, a party dedicated to Brexit.

Perhaps because despite you claims otherwise they did care and knew who their MEP would be, you have again proved your own argument to be untrue

[Cunobelin]

Just a thought

In most of our EU elections the biggest proportion of votes were the ones which were not cast. Who represented that majority, the ones who didn't want MEPS or didn't care if we had MEPs or not?

If we accept this argument that this is proof people didn’t want MEPs

Does that prove that the 13 million who did not vote in the Referendum didn’t want Brexit?

If so that would mean a 29 million vote against Brexit, buts let’s not go that far, and assume that 20 % were in the “didn’t want” camp and the rest didn’t care... it still means an unequivocal defeat for the Leave campaign


CC’s argument has just successfully negated the result of the Referendum!

[carpetcleaner]

Just a thought

In most of our EU elections the biggest proportion of votes were the ones which were not cast. Who represented that majority, the ones who didn't want MEPS or didn't care if we had MEPs or not?

If we accept this argument that this is proof people didn’t want MEPs

Does that prove that the 13 million who did not vote in the Referendum didn’t want Brexit?

If so that would mean a 29 million vote against Brexit, buts let’s not go that far, and assume that 20 % were in the “didn’t want” camp and the rest didn’t care... it still means an unequivocal defeat for the Leave campaign


CC’s argument has just successfully negated the result of the Referendum!

I don't think you can assume a single one of those 13 million were opposed to Brexit. If they were opposed they'd have voted Remain, a positive vote for something they wanted. On the other hand, it is fairly safe to assume that many non-voters in the EU elections didn't want any MEPs or or didn't care if we had them or not. There was no positive vote for these people to cast to register their opposition to the existence of our MEPs or their indifference to it.

In any case who cares about the referendum or its result? They are irrelevant.

We left the EU because parliament voted to leave, not because of the result of the referendum. MPs voted 358 to 234 to leave, 60.5% to 39.5%. That's an unequivocal result, though I'm sure someone on here will be able to produce some odd argument and some mangled maths to show that this impressive Leave win is in fact an inconclusive outcome or even a resounding Remain victory. Its amusing to see how some people can deny reality because they don't like it.

[Oldjohnw]

The Tories have spent the last decade saying that austerity was required because Gordon Brown spent money on schools and hospitals. As a result we've had benefit cuts resulting in deaths (a view supported by the courts), closing of youth clubs, libraries, sure start, loss of 20,000 police officers and 25% of prison officers.

Just saying.

[Cunobelin]

Just a thought

In most of our EU elections the biggest proportion of votes were the ones which were not cast. Who represented that majority, the ones who didn't want MEPS or didn't care if we had MEPs or not?

If we accept this argument that this is proof people didn’t want MEPs

Does that prove that the 13 million who did not vote in the Referendum didn’t want Brexit?

If so that would mean a 29 million vote against Brexit, buts let’s not go that far, and assume that 20 % were in the “didn’t want” camp and the rest didn’t care... it still means an unequivocal defeat for the Leave campaign


CC’s argument has just successfully negated the result of the Referendum!

I don't think you can assume a single one of those 13 million were opposed to Brexit. If they were opposed they'd have voted Remain, a positive vote for something they wanted. On the other hand, it is fairly safe to assume that many non-voters in the EU elections didn't want any MEPs or or didn't care if we had them or not. There was no positive vote for these people to cast to register their opposition to the existence of our MEPs or their indifference to it.

Yet it is your claim that these circumstances are proof people don’t want MEPs!
Please explain this after all surely... it is fairly safe to assume that many non-voters in the EU elections didn't want any MEPs or or didn't care if we had them or not.Then it should follow that it is fairly safe to assume that many non-voters in the Brexit referendum didn't want Brexit or or didn't care if we had Brexit or not.

You cannot have your cake and eat. Your premise is so deeply flawed. The reality is that your claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

any case who cares about the referendum or its result? They are irrelevant.

That is a massive turn around from your earlier posts!!!

We left the EU because parliament voted to leave, not because of the result of the referendum. MPs voted 358 to 234 to leave, 60.5% to 39.5%. That's an unequivocal result, though I'm sure someone on here will be able to produce some odd argument and some mangled maths to show that this impressive Leave win is in fact an inconclusive outcome or even a resounding Remain victory. Its amusing to see how some people can deny reality because they don't like it.

You have been vociferous in the past about the referendum, and made multiple disproven claims, yet now we have this contradiction of your own views.First time anyone on this thread has stated the Referendum was irrelevant

The advisory referendum was guidance for the Government, and if you really think that the vote in Parliament was not because of the referendum outcome, then that is your choice. However the majority of the population (a genuine one this time) realise that the Referendum triggered the Section 50 vote in Parliament.


As for mangled maths, this is all yours, and repeatedly disproven

[Oldjohnw]

I have decided that entering into argument with Carpetcleaner is both sterile and futile.