FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What's the point?
What's the point?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
you must understand most people are part of the herd, all they want is to have stability and trust there "leaders " to,i suppose lead them,
But when there leaders are trump or boris, mabey they should think about being more self reliant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
A fair summary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary."
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers "
The evidence is right in front of us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us. "
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us. "
The evidence as provided by the prosecution (media) is right before your eyes which are very or completely shut to the other side, that is true for every one not just you personally. It's the intolerance of the tolerant again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they "
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is? "
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?"
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
."
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is? "
The average voter not being equipped to analyse information? What, equipped with a brain? Again, how condescending and 'superior'.
Apart from the lack of a decent opposition why would I think there is a problem? I analysed the information, chose the preferable option and got what I voted for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
The average voter not being equipped to analyse information? What, equipped with a brain? Again, how condescending and 'superior'.
Apart from the lack of a decent opposition why would I think there is a problem? I analysed the information, chose the preferable option and got what I voted for "
Unbelievable the condescending nature of some on here.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
The average voter not being equipped to analyse information? What, equipped with a brain? Again, how condescending and 'superior'.
Apart from the lack of a decent opposition why would I think there is a problem? I analysed the information, chose the preferable option and got what I voted for Unbelievable the condescending nature of some on here. "
I mean, what's the alternative, people willingly vote to make their own lives worse, just so the Tories can hand cash to their mates! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate."
You're half right. Some people don't care either way. People are entitled to be apathetic.
But shooting down political dissent isn't great. Shows the power of the establishment. Not only do they have people happily voting for them, despite their open distain for ordinary British people, but they've also convinced some that they need to belittle those who ask questions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped."
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate.
You're half right. Some people don't care either way. People are entitled to be apathetic.
But shooting down political dissent isn't great. Shows the power of the establishment. Not only do they have people happily voting for them, despite their open distain for ordinary British people, but they've also convinced some that they need to belittle those who ask questions. "
There is asking questions and there is being so blinded by ones own opinion that you cant see straight |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate."
Bile and hatred ages people. Life’s too short to be politically miserable.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate.
You're half right. Some people don't care either way. People are entitled to be apathetic.
But shooting down political dissent isn't great. Shows the power of the establishment. Not only do they have people happily voting for them, despite their open distain for ordinary British people, but they've also convinced some that they need to belittle those who ask questions.
There is asking questions and there is being so blinded by ones own opinion that you cant see straight"
I agree.
Yet you choose to attack people who ask these questions. And at the same time seem cool with the government handing billions of public money to their buddies.
Which I support your right to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate.
You're half right. Some people don't care either way. People are entitled to be apathetic.
But shooting down political dissent isn't great. Shows the power of the establishment. Not only do they have people happily voting for them, despite their open distain for ordinary British people, but they've also convinced some that they need to belittle those who ask questions.
There is asking questions and there is being so blinded by ones own opinion that you cant see straight
I agree.
Yet you choose to attack people who ask these questions. And at the same time seem cool with the government handing billions of public money to their buddies. "
I guess we will never know if labour would have done it differently will we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps a lot of people dont care who runs the country their life doesnt alter much which party runs the UK, judging by the constant attacks on the government by some perhaps they are happier and not full of bile and hate.
You're half right. Some people don't care either way. People are entitled to be apathetic.
But shooting down political dissent isn't great. Shows the power of the establishment. Not only do they have people happily voting for them, despite their open distain for ordinary British people, but they've also convinced some that they need to belittle those who ask questions.
There is asking questions and there is being so blinded by ones own opinion that you cant see straight
I agree.
Yet you choose to attack people who ask these questions. And at the same time seem cool with the government handing billions of public money to their buddies.
I guess we will never know if labour would have done it differently will we?"
I don’t see any point in giving this question any thought. They were so toxic at the time it was never going to happen in a million years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
Your 1st point they let Bill Clinton off too also they didn’t impeach Nixon, they let him resign his office.
2nd point total garbage just your opinions & waffle in my opinion x which mates? names would help, & how are they associated? Which exports are they trying to trash? Haven’t they been signing trade deals of one kind or another? & which companies are they encouraging to move to the EU, & how are they doing this? Are they offering them money to set up over there, or which other method is the government using?
3rd the press & all the others you disagree with, both sides use this argument, ask my union rep why he votes the way he does, it’s cause he always has, same as his dad.
Your 4th & final point, is this form of democracy the least worst system, may be a valid point, but which other system would you have instead, we did have a vote back in 2011 on changing to an alternative vote system but the people voted to stick with the first past the post system x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
"
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andy 1Couple
over a year ago
northeast |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
Your 1st point they let Bill Clinton off too also they didn’t impeach Nixon, they let him resign his office.
2nd point total garbage just your opinions & waffle in my opinion x which mates? names would help, & how are they associated? Which exports are they trying to trash? Haven’t they been signing trade deals of one kind or another? & which companies are they encouraging to move to the EU, & how are they doing this? Are they offering them money to set up over there, or which other method is the government using?
3rd the press & all the others you disagree with, both sides use this argument, ask my union rep why he votes the way he does, it’s cause he always has, same as his dad.
Your 4th & final point, is this form of democracy the least worst system, may be a valid point, but which other system would you have instead, we did have a vote back in 2011 on changing to an alternative vote system but the people voted to stick with the first past the post system x"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?"
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system. "
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
The evidence as provided by the prosecution (media) is right before your eyes which are very or completely shut to the other side, that is true for every one not just you personally. It's the intolerance of the tolerant again."
And they can't see it and won't believe it or accept it, YOU are wrong lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in."
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
The average voter not being equipped to analyse information? What, equipped with a brain? Again, how condescending and 'superior'.
Apart from the lack of a decent opposition why would I think there is a problem? I analysed the information, chose the preferable option and got what I voted for Unbelievable the condescending nature of some on here. "
You seem so surprised by this!? Haha click on any thread in the politics or virus forum, you’ll see the same thing  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
It is still the best system we have invented would you like to be in Myanar or Russia to name but two.Object and you go to prison and they are not the softy type of prisons we have in the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ebbie69Couple
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
I have voted several times for both main parties depending on what they offer and the alternative. I don't personally know anyone that does not consider all options. I do know that insinuating any insults will not win people over |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it."
The media play a huge part.
Having the likes of Murdoch wield such massive influence is certainly not healthy.
Education, widespread corruption etc..its certainly flawed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
I have voted several times for both main parties depending on what they offer and the alternative. I don't personally know anyone that does not consider all options. I do know that insinuating any insults will not win people over"
There are certainly a lot of people out there who are life long tories/labour
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government."
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
"
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me. "
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean? "
Means they vote based on misinformation, or misunderstanding of information, or direct lies, etc etc.
Or could mean they are just apathetic and vote for the same party they've always voted for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
Means they vote based on misinformation, or misunderstanding of information, or direct lies, etc etc.
Or could mean they are just apathetic and vote for the same party they've always voted for. "
So you are privvy to different information or are just more intelligent than the average voter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean? "
It means thick, but apparently not  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean? "
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied."
And what is wrong with that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that? "
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that?
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already?"
Yes. And for all that time we were in the EU weren't we? The Tories were the only ones honouring the referendum, offering a way out and something different |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It means thick, but apparently not "
Let's just leave it then.
If any discussion comes down to "you're calling people thick", then it's pointless.
Have a good Sunday.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that?
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already?
Yes. And for all that time we were in the EU weren't we? The Tories were the only ones honouring the referendum, offering a way out and something different "
She wasnt talking about the eu
She was talking about the gmnt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that?
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already?
Yes. And for all that time we were in the EU weren't we? The Tories were the only ones honouring the referendum, offering a way out and something different "
This is an excellent example of the point. People just don't think about what's going on, or just don't care.
I don't know if you did that on purpose. But thank you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that?
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already?
Yes. And for all that time we were in the EU weren't we? The Tories were the only ones honouring the referendum, offering a way out and something different
She wasnt talking about the eu
She was talking about the gmnt"
And what were the government doing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in the US we have a bunch of people, many of them lawyers, voting to let a guilty man off because he is in the same club as them.
And in the UK we all stand and watch while the govt hands over billions of our money to their (almost all incompetent) mates, while trashing exports and encouraging British businesses to move into Europe.
The press hardly murmur. Most of the electorate are too ill informed and / or disinterested to ever change their voting patterns regardless of the behaviour of the politicans.
Is (this form of) democracy still the least worst system? I am beginning to doubt it.
A fair summary.
Most of the electorate are too ill informed? Oh the wisdom and superiority of the losers
The evidence is right in front of us.
If people didn't change their voting patterns the Tories wouldn't have an 80 seat majority now would they
Obviously some people change.
I'm not saying it's pure ignorance. That's the OPs perspective.
My point of view is that it's more to do with the average voter not being equipped to analyse information, combined with a media that force feed them misinformation. There's a lot of apathy too, which doesn't help.
Why, what do you think the problem is?
Let me ask you, if Labour win the next election, which I can actually see happening.
Will it still stand that the average voter isn't equipped to analyse?
That's very random question. Depends on what platform and what policies Labour stand on.
Right now all they're offering is the lesser of two evils option.
But on general, yes, there are a significant number of voters who are either too apathetic to care enough to analyse what they're being told, or just not equipped to
.
I don't think it's random. We've had a Tory governement for 11 years now and you're viewbis it's because people aren't equipped to analyse the information fed to us.
I wondered if that still stands if Labour win the next GE. Or will people suddenly be more equipped.
Yes. My opinion would stay the same until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Which evidence is this you speak of. Is there actual evidence that people don't have the capacity to read information and then do their own due diligence?
Yeah. Just look at this country. Look at whose in charge, how easy it is for them to get re-elected despite their openly self servicing agenda and open distain for ordinary people.
And look at the media that serves to propagate the current system.
So everyone who voted for the current government doesn't have the capacity or just the people who swayed the vote?
As I said, I can see Labour winning the next election. I just can't see how were all too 'thick' today but those same people aren't 'thick' if we vote Labour in.
No one is talking about "everyone". So I can't answer your first question.
And no one aside from you is calling anyone "thick" so I don't know who you're quoting there.
And I don't really understand why you're talking about a hypothetical situation about another party. I'm talking about real life situation with the current government.
I like how you're going round in circles, it's not normally your style though.
'Thick' a was clearly a synonym for what you're trying to say.
Of course it's a hypothetical question because Labour aren't in power. You're either choosing not to acknowledge the question or just don't know, which is fine.
Last time, if people switched their vote to Labour tomorrow, would you still say they didn't have the capacity (thick)?
Firstly if I wanted to call someone "thick" I would. But if you prefer to imagine I've said something I haven't. Then get annoyed about it, then ask me hypothetical questions based on the thing you've made up about me, in order to deflect from the point. I can't stop you.
But it doesn't mean I'm obligated to answer your question.
Can I ask for some clarification questions about your hypothetical scenario, because there isn't enough to go on so far.
1. These hypothetical people switched from Tory to Labour tomorrow, what would their reason be?
2. Is there a GE tomorrow in this scenario?
3. What policies and manifestos are the Tories and Labour presenting in this scenario?
If you don't want to clarify, and just want me to answer if these hypothetical people are "thick". Then I'll stick with my opinions about everyone discussed so far and say. No. As I've not suggested anyone is thick. You have done that. Not me.
What does - the average voter not being equipped to analyse information - mean?
I remember a woman being asked which way she voted in the last general election.
Consveratve she replied.
What policies must appeal to you she was then asked?
I just think we need a change she replied.
And what is wrong with that?
You realise the Tories have been in power for 10 years already?
Yes. And for all that time we were in the EU weren't we? The Tories were the only ones honouring the referendum, offering a way out and something different
This is an excellent example of the point. People just don't think about what's going on, or just don't care.
I don't know if you did that on purpose. But thank you."
People do think about what is going on. The fact that they think differently to you doesn't mean they are wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago
Near Wells |
A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy? "
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story."
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story.
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story? "
I still wanna know when we all the information is freely available to all sides, why it's supposedly only Tory voters that 'don't have the capacity' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story.
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story?
I still wanna know when we all the information is freely available to all sides, why it's supposedly only Tory voters that 'don't have the capacity'"
Tories = baaaad
Anyone else = good  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story.
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story? "
4 years of headlines versus 1 5 minute broadcast?
Yep sounds fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story.
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story?
I still wanna know when we all the information is freely available to all sides, why it's supposedly only Tory voters that 'don't have the capacity'"
Dunno..I didnt say that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I think In principle, the system we have is amongst the best.
I would say the lobbying issue certainly needs to be looked at.
However I'd counter that by saying there are massive inequalities in that system where powerful interests and voices make sure their needs are met.
Said it before the media play a massive part in how this country votes and very often we only hear 1 side of the story.
So when we have party political broadcasts or TV debates, we are only hearing 1 side of the story?
I still wanna know when we all the information is freely available to all sides, why it's supposedly only Tory voters that 'don't have the capacity'"
Ye strange that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system."
Fake news, it doesn’t |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system.
Fake news, it doesn’t "
That is why you are so clueless about how the world works and why you only believe what your Tory government, newspapers and mainstream media tell you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system.
Fake news, it doesn’t
That is why you are so clueless about how the world works and why you only believe what your Tory government, newspapers and mainstream media tell you."
Still Fake News. Sorry |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system.
Fake news, it doesn’t
That is why you are so clueless about how the world works and why you only believe what your Tory government, newspapers and mainstream media tell you."
Sorry that we're lacking your level of enlightenment. I feel bad now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system.
Fake news, it doesn’t
That is why you are so clueless about how the world works and why you only believe what your Tory government, newspapers and mainstream media tell you.
Still Fake News. Sorry "
Don't be sorry, it's ok, you don't have the intelligence to understand and are far too brainwashed. Keep listening to your leader Boris Johnson, he'll never lie to you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
The deep state controls the US government, UK government, world governments, mainstream media, social media networks, the big tech companies, the two tier justice system.
Fake news, it doesn’t
That is why you are so clueless about how the world works and why you only believe what your Tory government, newspapers and mainstream media tell you.
Still Fake News. Sorry
Don't be sorry, it's ok, you don't have the intelligence to understand and are far too brainwashed. Keep listening to your leader Boris Johnson, he'll never lie to you "
The deep state doesn’t exist, it is made up by an even deeper state to fool and confuse you , the deep deep state is the one to fear |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy? "
I didn't say I had an answer, but I can point to a few places that are doing things that we might consider:
At last some Scandi countries limit the number of years you can serve as an MP, so it is genuinely seen as a public service, rather than a career that can be exploited for building a very big nest.
Several countries, including Ireland, have started using forms of sortition to address some of the more divisive issues.
Voting is compulsory in some countries (Australia, for instance).
I am just frustrated that the Republicans are clearly so confident that nothing is ever going to really change that they basically ignore their sworn roles. It is sickening.
And all the people who say I am clearly wrong in saying that most people won't ever change their voting patterns because we sometimes change numbers in various parliaments is just facile. Both in the UK and the US elections can be swung on a very small number of well placed votes.
And my claim that many of the electorate are not well informed is clearly borne out by the posts in this thread. We have a self selected bunch of politics nerds some of whom are basically in denial about news that doesn't fit in with their team's world view. If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?"
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?"
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids."
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids."
Politics is taught in sixth form should you want to study it. My daughter is studying it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
Politics is taught in sixth form should you want to study it. My daughter is studying it."
You choose to study it in 6form dont you?
And that's at a level I presume?.it should be studied through senior school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level "
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE."
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
Politics is taught in sixth form should you want to study it. My daughter is studying it.
You choose to study it in 6form dont you?
And that's at a level I presume?.it should be studied through senior school."
Yeah it's a choice. It's not compulsory. I wouldn't be against it but honestly I think there's loads of stuff that should be taught in school which isn't. And I guess different people would have different ideas on compulsory subjects. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
"
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A question for the Op.
Out of 195 countries or states in the world, which ones do you think have a fairer or better democratic system than the UK?
Or even, name a country that has a good example of democracy?
I didn't say I had an answer, but I can point to a few places that are doing things that we might consider:
At last some Scandi countries limit the number of years you can serve as an MP, so it is genuinely seen as a public service, rather than a career that can be exploited for building a very big nest.
Several countries, including Ireland, have started using forms of sortition to address some of the more divisive issues.
Voting is compulsory in some countries (Australia, for instance).
I am just frustrated that the Republicans are clearly so confident that nothing is ever going to really change that they basically ignore their sworn roles. It is sickening.
And all the people who say I am clearly wrong in saying that most people won't ever change their voting patterns because we sometimes change numbers in various parliaments is just facile. Both in the UK and the US elections can be swung on a very small number of well placed votes.
And my claim that many of the electorate are not well informed is clearly borne out by the posts in this thread. We have a self selected bunch of politics nerds some of whom are basically in denial about news that doesn't fit in with their team's world view. If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?"
Another sore loser |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement"
Possibly. But Labour would never gain power again.
What is it they say? If you're under 30 and vote Tory you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and vote Labour you don't have a brain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement
Possibly. But Labour would never gain power again.
What is it they say? If you're under 30 and vote Tory you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and vote Labour you don't have a brain? "
You are supposed to be left wing till you hit 30 then.you turn into a tory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement
Possibly. But Labour would never gain power again.
What is it they say? If you're under 30 and vote Tory you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and vote Labour you don't have a brain?
You are supposed to be left wing till you hit 30 then.you turn into a tory."
Idealistic when you're younger and pragmatic as you get older. Tbf, the data does actually show this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement
Possibly. But Labour would never gain power again.
What is it they say? If you're under 30 and vote Tory you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and vote Labour you don't have a brain?
You are supposed to be left wing till you hit 30 then.you turn into a tory.
Idealistic when you're younger and pragmatic as you get older. Tbf, the data does actually show this. "
You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If this group has people who are so easily swayed, what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics going to have?
Ooops. Should have said:
...what chance do the people who don't even take an interest in politics have?
Teaching politics in school would be a start but the daily mail readership would probally have an aunerism with all those lefty teachers indoctrinating the kids.
They taught politics at my School. Albeit A level
Sane here but you chose to study it.
It should be compulsory at GCSE.
I don’t think anything should be compulsory at GCSE other than maths science and English. The rest should be down to the individual.
I dont know.
I think a lot of people simply dont give a fuck about politics because they think it doesnt concern them.If they were taught it at school maybe there would be more engagement
Possibly. But Labour would never gain power again.
What is it they say? If you're under 30 and vote Tory you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and vote Labour you don't have a brain?
You are supposed to be left wing till you hit 30 then.you turn into a tory.
Idealistic when you're younger and pragmatic as you get older. Tbf, the data does actually show this.
You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older. "
I'd imagine that would be a factor yeah |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older. "
I'm not sure this makes sense though. If it was just about protecting your assets then this would only work for the top 1% (or maybe it is 5% - whatever) who genuinely can afford to opt out of state funded education, health care etc. But the number of people who would gain directly financially (and arguably lose out in other ways, like not being able to access an educated and healthy labour force etc etc) is a tiny minority. You won't win an election on that alone.
It's the Ragged Trousers thing I guess... a century has taught us nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older.
I'm not sure this makes sense though. If it was just about protecting your assets then this would only work for the top 1% (or maybe it is 5% - whatever) who genuinely can afford to opt out of state funded education, health care etc. But the number of people who would gain directly financially (and arguably lose out in other ways, like not being able to access an educated and healthy labour force etc etc) is a tiny minority. You won't win an election on that alone.
It's the Ragged Trousers thing I guess... a century has taught us nothing."
I don't think it's everyone. Just a pattern that happens with some people.
Maybe it's based more on perception than reality. I don't know.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older.
I'm not sure this makes sense though. If it was just about protecting your assets then this would only work for the top 1% (or maybe it is 5% - whatever) who genuinely can afford to opt out of state funded education, health care etc. But the number of people who would gain directly financially (and arguably lose out in other ways, like not being able to access an educated and healthy labour force etc etc) is a tiny minority. You won't win an election on that alone.
It's the Ragged Trousers thing I guess... a century has taught us nothing."
It's not even close to 1-5% who may benefit from right wing policies.
Maybe people over 30 don't rely on social funding as much (not sure about this). Then there's taxes, that affects a lot of people who aren't in that top bracket. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"
Maybe it's based more on perception than reality. I don't know.
"
I think this is it. People vote in the best interests of the people they aspire to be. They all see themselves as potentially being in that very small group who would benefit from lower top tax rates. Very few of them get there, but the ones that do benefit from the dreams of the others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"
It's not even close to 1-5% who may benefit from right wing policies.
Maybe people over 30 don't rely on social funding as much (not sure about this). Then there's taxes, that affects a lot of people who aren't in that top bracket."
Not sure I get your point here. Can you clarify? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's not even close to 1-5% who may benefit from right wing policies.
Maybe people over 30 don't rely on social funding as much (not sure about this). Then there's taxes, that affects a lot of people who aren't in that top bracket.
Not sure I get your point here. Can you clarify?"
You said of it was just about protecting assets it would only be the top bracket.
It's not only people in the top bracket who have assets to protect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"
It's not only people in the top bracket who have assets to protect."
Indeed it is not, but the interests of the most people who are not in the top tax bracket are better served by governments who don't sell stuff off to their mates. I would say the NHS was a _huge_ collective asset which is generally agreed to be better looked after by Labour, and the Tories have been selling off many of our schools and their play grounds to their mates.
These are the assets that really matter to people, unless their bank accounts are stuffed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It's not only people in the top bracket who have assets to protect.
Indeed it is not, but the interests of the most people who are not in the top tax bracket are better served by governments who don't sell stuff off to their mates. I would say the NHS was a _huge_ collective asset which is generally agreed to be better looked after by Labour, and the Tories have been selling off many of our schools and their play grounds to their mates.
These are the assets that really matter to people, unless their bank accounts are stuffed."
But the comment was about people over 30 having more money. The likelihood is that people over 30 would also have more assets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It could also be that older people have experienced Labour governments under Callaghan and Blair and have no wish to go back there "
As if anyone in their right mind would vote tory after living under Thatcherism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're more likely to have more money when you're a bit older. That's probably a factor why people shift from left, to right as they grow older.
I'm not sure this makes sense though. If it was just about protecting your assets then this would only work for the top 1% (or maybe it is 5% - whatever) who genuinely can afford to opt out of state funded education, health care etc. But the number of people who would gain directly financially (and arguably lose out in other ways, like not being able to access an educated and healthy labour force etc etc) is a tiny minority. You won't win an election on that alone.
It's the Ragged Trousers thing I guess... a century has taught us nothing.
I don't think it's everyone. Just a pattern that happens with some people.
Maybe it's based more on perception than reality. I don't know.
"
Yeah I certainly wouldnt say its 100% accurate.
Its more likely to do we middle class kids trying to be radical when they are in uni and then daddy getting them a job when they get out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sussexy OP Man
over a year ago
Lewes |
"
But the comment was about people over 30 having more money. The likelihood is that people over 30 would also have more assets."
I'm not disputing that. I am making the point that, for the majority, their individual assets are worth considerably less than their shared assets (and I used the examples of the NHS and our schools) which are being, often somewhat covertly, privatised.
If your personal assets are over a certain - high - threshold, then you won't be directly concerned with that, as you can afford private schooling for your kids and grandkids, and can pay for private health cover. But even if you are in that very small group, you will very likely be dependent on workers who are not, and you will need them to be educated/trained and healthy to keep the funds flowing into your huge bank account.
My argument is that the number of people who really profit from the lower top tax rates, when they offset those marginal gains against the school fees, private health, living in gated communities because the police force is underfunded etc etc that they need to pay because -let's face it - that is the cost of low taxes, that number is not sufficient to win elections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Maybe it's based more on perception than reality. I don't know.
I think this is it. People vote in the best interests of the people they aspire to be. They all see themselves as potentially being in that very small group who would benefit from lower top tax rates. Very few of them get there, but the ones that do benefit from the dreams of the others."
You do realise you pay more and more tax the more you earn... until eventually you get sick of paying it and move to monaco or switzerland and then pay none? which makes your theory redundant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
