Have we not learnt from the previous Government, of chop and change with those who got the keys to Number 10?
Like it’s been said, 2 years is nothing after having those Tories in for 14 years.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
Compare him to Sleepy Joe Biden, many Americans said they could sleep at night. He wasn’t on TV 24/7 or tweeting some nonsense.
Only for the fake baked one in the white house, causing a tantrum at every opportunity he can, as his enablers aren’t reigning him in; instead, they are enabling his actions. He’s affecting the course of the world’s direction with hate.
Let Starmer get on with the job he was voted in to do, and come the General Elections, get Reform and farage in, and count the days of who lasts longer, farage or a turnip. They will soon realise that they made a mistake wanting the watered-down version of Trump in Downing Street.
Regardless of who is in Number 10, people will always find something to be hateful about.
With IndyRef 2 on the horizon pleasing Scotland is of less interest to English voters than ever before. There is also very little sympathy for Doctors who are on strike more often than tube drivers.
If you actually look at NHS performance waiting lists are down and they have also finally grasped the difficult straw of agency staff and in NHS England at least (not sure about the others) have pretty much eliminated them from the day to day running of things (there are exceptions such as MH nurses).
Let be realistic the Tories very much had the whip hand, the LibDems had 1 real policy they could bring and squandered it in an AV vote referendum (should’ve made student loans part of the deal instead).
Depends on when / where / what you see as the most critical political point over the last few years?
For me, it was Cameron & Brexit. I think the expectation was that the referendum vote would be remain. Ah, oh dear. He pulled the black & yellow handle, & who ended up taking over, a “remainer.” Not good for bargaining at all.
Overall, lots of political & fiscal consequences.
An important causal factor was the lack of not setting a required standard (as per Swiss referenda rules) to ensure (a) minimum participation levels & (b) a set margin to break out from all the issues (that we subsequently saw) of having a small winning margin.
But also, Reform has just been able to pour so so much effort and money into advertising and near-on propaganda that facts are starting not to matter. If you shout things loud enough people will believe it. Very much like the US, you’ve got incredibly rich individuals telling poor people they’re on their side, and they believe it.
I know he didn’t understand what charles said. His brain cell can’t process words to be pronounced correctly without sounding like his teeth are falling out
Yes, it was high (72% of the voting “population”), although the 1992 General Election was higher (just under 78% - previous record was in Feb 1974).
It was the fact that a minimum level hadn’t been set - or even considered regional majorities (as per the Swiss model, plus any requirement for a “double-majority” protocol) - the UK doesn’t really “do” national referenda.
That’s because we never “did” national referenda (only 3 since 1975 I think) or with simple comparison to other countries that use them regularly. No history to say it had to be done without guardrails.
My mistake — it wasn’t the highest turnout ever, but the largest number of votes for a particular option on the ballot (as for those higher turnout elections, the votes would be split more than two ways).
For something as constitutionally important as Brexit, I think this would have been reasonable.
As well as a yes in all of the devolved nations, to avoid the Scotland problem.
