Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Demand more Learn more
by Lib Dem Team on 28 June, 2016
Here’s how each ward in Cheadle Constituency voted in the referendum. Every ward in Cheadle constituency voted to remain IN the EU.
| Ward | REMAIN %age | LEAVE %age |
| BRAMHALL NORTH | 59.46 | 40.45 |
| BRAMHALL SOUTH & WOODFORD | 62.09 | 37.89 |
| CHEADLE & GATLEY | 60.66 | 39.26 |
| CHEADLE HULME NORTH | 53.17 | 46.81 |
| CHEADLE HULME SOUTH | 58.65 | 41.28 |
| HEALD GREEN | 52.02 | 47.94 |
| STEPPING HILL | 53.81 | 46.17 |
| TOTAL FOR CHEADLE CONSTITUENCY | 57.32 | 42.6 |
GIVE IT A REST we voted and the results are in and are conclusive, do you want to rake over every result (be careful what you say one day it will be a Lib Dem win that is dissected and you might not like that)
Its time you got behind the Country be Positive and lets move onwards and upwards
The opening statement makes it sound like it was an overwhelming ‘IN’ vote. It wasn’t. Lib Dems don’t seem to care either that they are disengaging with a large percentage of local people on this one.
What can be wrong with advising the public about the detail of an election result. I find this very interesting and am pleased to find that I live amongst a majority of people who share my views.
Interesting statistics – thanks for posting. The figures seem to follow the national socio-economic breakdown between the two sides, with the more affluent wards having a larger vote for “remain”.
But Cheadle did vote “overwhelmingly” to remain; 57% as opposed to the national figure of 51.9% to leave. Simply stating that every ward voted to remain and publishing the result is hardly deserving of these intemperate comments. Just another example of the rising intolerance.
In the cold light of day the leave campaign and some who voted to leave are now realising there was no plan, we still haven’t left EU, we’ve not even started to fill in article 50 and if there is opportunity to over rule then I’ll vote again. it wasn’t the X-factor, it was about breaking a relationship which brought peace and unity to all.
The more affluent wards are probably able to isolate themselves from the negative sides of mass immigrations ( struggle for social housing, getting their child into a local school, competing with an 300,000 people every year for low skilled work) and can instead bask in the benefits of mass immigration.
It is telling the the LiBDem Leader has stared that he will try and derail the exit process – so much for democracy
The referendum was an I’ll thought piece of Tory mismanagement.
The Leave vote won 52% on a 70% turnout, ie 35% of the vote. If you call that Demicracy I suggest you move to N Korea!! What should have been specified was a 2/3rds majority, which would have been far more democratic.
Alan, so what do you suggest, that the campaign that came second should win?
Alan, I meant to add that the leave campaign still got more than the remain campaign – so why should the remain campaign (under your proposals) win?
I think it is you who would be more at home in North Korea
Alan
Do you propose that any vote that has less than a 70% turnout and a 2/3rds majority is null and void ?
How many elections have been won using your argument?
Please tell me how many seats the Lib Dems won, that comply with your democratic ideas
The result is the result – and it’s one we all have to live with.There’s only the exact terms of leaving to be agreed – although that seems like it’ll be a mammoth job, but there you are.
However, I think there’s a lesson to be learned for any future referenda. Organisations, seeking to change their constitution, usually require more than a simple majority to change – often two thirds. I see no reason why the general public, voting in a national referendum, should need easier rules to change than, say, the local golf club or a trade union. The 1979 referendum in Scotland had a minimum turnout required (which failed to happen). Changes to any constitution are important matters and should be seen to have overwhelming support.
John – The EU has had massive constitutional change (morphing from a trading block, which we voted for, to political union, which we didn’t) without any agreement from the public.
No one from the remain side of the fence seem to see the how undemocratic that was
Actually I didnt vote in the 1970s referendum, because I couldnt make my mind up whether it was a good thing or not. I remember the discussions – there was the talk of “ever closer union” then and I really didnt know if I wanted that. Over time, I came to decide that I did in fact want the ever closer union – I would have had no fears about a “United States of Europe” but I know that very few of us, right across Europe, supported that concept and it was never seriously on the cards. Shame really, because a number of countries including the UK are federalist in their constitutions, with some powers being held by regional governments and others by the national government. I’m going to stop there – as it’s going to sound like trying to rerun the referendum debate and we’re past that now.
However, I would take Alan up on his bet. I feel pretty sure that we’ll be “out” in the two years following the Article 50 notification, although I reckon discussions will go on for years after that to finalise trade agreements, etc. It seems clear that many of the other countries can’t wait to see the back of us and will hasten things along.
Roy, Halifaix,
No I’m not suggesting Remain should now win, I’m merely saying that suggesting Leave has a mandate on 30% is hardly democracy in action. I know that’s the result of the referendum, but does that make it right? Anyway we are where we are, but I’m willing to bet in 3 years time, we’re still in the EU…
Alan – But the remain camp has even less of a mandate.
I won’t take you up on your bet, as unfortunately our MPs have a history of ignoring the people.
Even now we have the LibDem leader pledging to try and de-rail the exit program.
Iain – I see you removed my comment.
Any particular reason?
They were all facts.
Not partial to criticism?
Just submitted a long comment and its gone missing so posting this to see what happens
This is the letter I have sent to Mary Robinson – please send something similar to try to prevent this disaster of BREXIT happening.
Dear Mary Robinson,
Following the BREXIT vote I am very concerned at this outcome to leave the EU. However, the purpose of my writing to you is to point out the inadequacy that a result only requires a 50% + 1 to win and trigger BREXIT.
For such a massive constitutional change this I believe is far too easy.This criteria should have been more difficult, which is quite common (for example to change the US constitution requires a 2/3 of Congress/Senate approval).
I agree and have signed the BREXIT petition that will be discussed by the House of Commons. The referendum is not legally binding and the BREXIT petition for a second referendum with more sensible criteria is very reasonable.
I urge that you vote to allow a second referendum when this petition is discussed in the Commons.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick Kenny
So because it was close, you want second place to win?
Frederick, you clearly have either a problem with, or no understanding of democracy – you must be a LibDem
As I’ve said, I don’t believe there should be a second referendum. However, I think there may well be serious difficulties ahead – mainly for folk who voted “Leave”. As we know, the Leave campaign had really nothing to say about how they saw things after we’ve left – what sort of arrangement we would have with the EU. Would it be like Norway’s? Or Switzerland? Or Canada? Or something else?
I can easily see many Leavers saying “When I voted, I expected it would be XYZ. But then the government said they were going to aim for ABC, but the best they’ve been able to negotiate is DEF. I’m not at all happy – that’s nothing like what I thought would happen.” We’d be “out” but, for them, the wrong sort of “out”.
Maybe the answer is a general election before Article 50 is triggered. The parties can put forward their positions and we have a say, by voting, in agreeing or disagreeing with them.
John – What don’t you get, we have just had a vote?
The people who voted remain (or who voted in in 1972) had no idea how Europe will develop and will continue to develop (will we need to bail out Greece, Italy and Spain).
You can only speculate on the future direction of the EU and the impact that would have on the UK,in the same way that ‘outers’ have speculated.
We were handcuffed to a corpse – by and large Europe is either bankrupt (Greece), nearly bankrupt (Italy, Spain, Portugal and France), or just plain poor (all the old Eastern Block countries). It has 40% youth unemployment across the South – what so great of the EU?
Suggest you re-read my post so you can see what I actually said, rather than what you assume I might have said.
Particularly the bits where (a) I disagree with the idea of a second referendum and (b) I suggest that many Leavers may well be disappointed by the end result.
You and I can completely agree that we completely disagree about the benefits of EU membership.Your side won the referendum and I’m not about to try rerunning the arguments as you seem to want to.
Frederick Kenny – grow up, this is becoming rather boring now.
“S&P Global Ratings on Monday downgraded economic growth forecasts for the UK and the euro-area, citing the impact of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.
The ratings agency said Brexit will cut UK gross domestic product by 1.2% next year and 1.0% percent in 2018, due to weaker investment prospects. S&P expects the EU referendum will knock 0.8% of eurozone GDP over 2017 and 2018.”
No doubt these idiot experts are completely wrong and we will soar away into the Brexit utopia. Well you can vote for self harming if you want but i’m going to keep trying to get a second referendum when we actually know what it means rather than the it will be all right on the night bilge from Leave.
Also 60% of Robinsons constituency voted Remain so writing to her might get her to see reason.
Are these the same forecasters who failed to spot the financial crash until it hit us like an express train?
And if the EU is so great, why are so many EU countries in a financial mess?
Additional a few % points of GDP is not everything – if you struggle to get a job, social housing, your child into a local school (as in the case currently) then a few % point of GDP is meaningless.
Nationally GDP has gone up because the population has gone up. Each additional person, even if unproductive and is on benefits, increases GDP. So don’t believe all the smoke and mirrors of the ‘economic miracle’
There were good arguments to be put to the public why the UK should leave the EU but unemployment or social housing were not two of them.
We have the lowest unemployment rates in years. I am not a Tory voter but it’s something the government can be completely proud of. As a country, we now need to be creating more skilled, better paying jobs – it’s something the trade union movement will continue to press for.
What the government can not be proud of (nor the last Labour government), is it’s dismal record on building social housing. There is a housing crisis but it is not caused by the EU but by that failure to build houses. We need a massive building programme that just doesnt have the end result of more homes but will also have created jobs, including apprenticeships, in the construction industry and, as folk move into those new homes, they’ll want to buy furniture and all the other stuff that goes into a house, boosting the economy with even more jobs and wealth for us all.
I disagree, we do not have a housing crisis, we have an immigration crisis.
Since 1997 (when Labour changed the rules om immigration), we have had a net gain of between 2-300,000 every single year (some year even more).
That is an approximate net increase of 5,000,000. Without that massive increase we would not have a housing shortage or do those people not need houses?
You seem to start out from the position that immigration is a bad thing. I start out from the position that it is a good thing.
From my position, we build houses with all the extra benefits for society that I mention. From your position, we don’t build the houses, so society gets none of the benefits. I’d rather live in my UK than yours.
John – I think of immigration as like adding salt to soup – a small amount can be good, however chucking in a handful isn’t probably a good idea.
My view is that mass immigration ( and a net gain of 2-300,000 is mass) isn’t good.
We have seen the negative effect that house building is having on our area – or do you think that the houses that Cheshire East are planning is beneficial to us?
And whilst I appreciate that immigrants are unlikely to be buying these houses, 2-300,000 extra people every has to be housed somewhere, and that creates displacement to places like Chshire East, Woodford, Barnes Hospital etc etc
As you suggested yourself, the real issue is about social housing. If the Cheshire East proposal was for that, then I would be more sympathetic to it.
I used to work in social housing and I remember an earlier generation of politicans claiming immigrants were taking all the social housing. It was a myth then and its a myth now.
The vast majority of immigrants stand little chance of getting social housing withoiut a wait of many years. Councils, such as Stockport, allocate housing based on a points scheme – if you look at the scheme (on the council’s website), you will see that it is heavily waited towards long term local residents in genuine housing need. That’s why, when you look around areas such as Greater Manchester, the obvious signs of immigration (such as lots of ethnic shops, etc) are in areas where there are lots of privately rented properties, not on council estates.
It is in that area where building much more social housing is needed to relieve the “supply & demand” pressures on rents. Of course, you can see that the Tory government might think of those who “buy to let” to be their natural supporters – supporters who would not take kindly to seeing their incomes being reduced becuase of social housing. That, in itself, might explain a reluctance on the part of the Tories to build the houses. We should be ranting that taxpayers are having to fund more housing benefit payments, simply because private landlords are able to trouser extortionate rents.
You don’t need to increase supply, just reduce demand.
Less immigration = less demand