 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The next PM has taken so long when just 160000Tory members were allowed to vote weeks ago who may have voted long before last Friday's deadline. Also why does it take so long to count the votes.
Results are quicker with general elections.
Winston Churchill will be turning in his grave... Certainly with the past Tory PM's and the next one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Voting closed at 5 PM on Friday and it is a mixture of online voting and postal votes. People can vote in the post but then change their mind and vote online so they have to be extra careful to make sure no votes are counted twice. Also in lots of parts of the country votes aren't counted the same day as the election it just depends on how your local election authority deal with the count. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
agreed it's a farce. the process should've been behind closed doors instead of being given political oxygen by the tv. the general election campaigns get less coverage than a party leadership race. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"agreed it's a farce. the process should've been behind closed doors instead of being given political oxygen by the tv. the general election campaigns get less coverage than a party leadership race."
General elections do not get less coverage untill Purdah is Instituted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
How can the Conservative Party Membership be polar opposite to MPs?
If you look at the demographic.
Older generation with expensive homes, few financial worries and the promises of tax cuts - people that don't need them. These get to benefit by voting for someone happy to shaft lower peasants for their own selfish reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's certainly a farce that so few people and all from 1 party - got to pick our next pm.
Then again if a new leader for the ruling party meant an automatic national election, the Tories may not have kicked out Johnson at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How can the Conservative Party Membership be polar opposite to MPs?
If you look at the demographic.
Older generation with expensive homes, few financial worries and the promises of tax cuts - people that don't need them. These get to benefit by voting for someone happy to shaft lower peasants for their own selfish reasons."
The solution is to join all the political parties so you can have a vote in their respective leadership elections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How can the Conservative Party Membership be polar opposite to MPs?
If you look at the demographic.
Older generation with expensive homes, few financial worries and the promises of tax cuts - people that don't need them. These get to benefit by voting for someone happy to shaft lower peasants for their own selfish reasons.
The solution is to join all the political parties so you can have a vote in their respective leadership elections."
Well I guess it might get one more meets than fab does  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"agreed it's a farce. the process should've been behind closed doors instead of being given political oxygen by the tv. the general election campaigns get less coverage than a party leadership race.
General elections do not get less coverage untill Purdah is Instituted. "
yes they do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Also, a lot of broadcast debates, not a great idea when the wider public was not going to get a vote. Were these debates truly needed with the airtime the candidates had on news bulletins. "
I thought this at the beginning but actually thought it isn't a bad idea for the general public to get an idea of what these candidates stand for. I definitely knew more about the 2 final candidates after the debates than before. But television at radio audiences are fairly high from my understanding so it shows that people were engaging with it and I don't think that's a bad thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
