FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > And the wining number is.....
And the wining number is.....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. They only need 12%. As I said yesterday, ULEZ is why Conservatives held Uxbridge. That won't be an issue in other constituencies. " As far as ulez goes, it's worth remembering who came up with the idea in the first place and that person is a man called Johnson | |||
| |||
"If only the voters of Uxbridge had remembered that" 100%, obviously the fault for that lays firmly with other parties involved, campaigning needs to better thought out. I imagine that it was thought that Boris bashing might have a negative effect. | |||
| |||
"It seems (bizarrely) some people believe Johnson was separate from the Conservative party, almost his own party." Disassociation is an interesting concept ?? | |||
| |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant." Surely it was 1-1-1? | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1?" It was more like lost 2, fingernailed 1 | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? It was more like lost 2, fingernailed 1" Oh I see. That comment made it look like a 2 team game  | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1?" Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! " The only surprise here is Uxbridge | |||
| |||
| |||
"Well it could have been worse. Laurence Fox could have won Uxbridge. " 714 votes | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge "I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected. | |||
"If only the voters of Uxbridge had remembered that" Eh? How is bojo being blamed for khan's ulez expansion? I said on here a while ago. Bojos home constituency would re vote him in at around 40% in polling. Good showing in the other 2 by elections. When itn comes to an election however. Its a completely different kettle of fish. SKS and labour will actually have to put some policies together. I think labour will unseat the tory majority. I'm still not convinced labour will get a majority themselves. | |||
"If only the voters of Uxbridge had remembered that Eh? How is bojo being blamed for khan's ulez expansion? I said on here a while ago. Bojos home constituency would re vote him in at around 40% in polling. Good showing in the other 2 by elections. When itn comes to an election however. Its a completely different kettle of fish. SKS and labour will actually have to put some policies together. I think labour will unseat the tory majority. I'm still not convinced labour will get a majority themselves. " that is my worry, SKS doesn't seem capable of making a decision and sticking to it, if there was a coalition we will be stuck in limbo for a few years doing nothing... | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge
I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected."That's just it isn't it. Making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems the order of the day. These were expected results, apart from Uxbridge. | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge
I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected.
That's just it isn't it. Making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems the order of the day.
These were expected results, apart from Uxbridge."From what incould gather the tories were expected to lose all 3. I'm surprised Uxbridge voted in a con. | |||
| |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge
I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected.
That's just it isn't it. Making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems the order of the day.
These were expected results, apart from Uxbridge."You have to look at the swing, excuse the pun, as it is huge... | |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge
I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected.
That's just it isn't it. Making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems the order of the day.
These were expected results, apart from Uxbridge.
From what incould gather the tories were expected to lose all 3.
I'm surprised Uxbridge voted in a con."That seat has been Tory since its creation. Its predecessor was last labour in the 60’s I think. | |||
| |||
"2-1, 2-1, 2-1 is a great football chant. Surely it was 1-1-1? Yes! Triple threat match! Sunak got slammed off the top turnbuckle. In the end tories had 3, lost 2 and were left with 1. Maths is fun! The only surprise here is Uxbridge
I'm thinking that too, nothing of a surprise in the other 2 but lots to be made from it to fill the medias attempt at creating a compelling story from something that was widely expected.
That's just it isn't it. Making a mountain out of a molehill. Seems the order of the day.
These were expected results, apart from Uxbridge.
You have to look at the swing, excuse the pun, as it is huge..."Expected swing. I'm not sure what you've been watching or reading in the lead up but everything I seen said the Tories would take a beating, which they did. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent." The circle continues, this is the problem with the 1st past the post system we have. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent." Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority 
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
| |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. The circle continues, this is the problem with the 1st past the post system we have." Yes the mps are reaping what the sew. When bojo was kicked out he was 3 point behind sks. Sunak is now over 20 points behind? The grass isn't always greener. Conservatives weren't" ready for rishi" and neither was the uk. This is whaybhappens when you force and unelected PM on people. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Polls are ranging from 20 - 25 points against the government. In anyones books, that's huge." absolutely agree. In July 2018 though lab were roughly neck and neck with the cons. Once corbyn said he was I favpur of a a second referendumin july 2019. It was labs undoing. Both were polling at 25% at this point By Oct 19 tories were at 35% Labour at 25% This is whybid be wary of anything until the run up to an election. Manifestos matter. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
"It’s not spin to say that an 80 seat majority shouldn’t be turned over in one term, regardless of the events surrounding the previous election. | |||
"Polls are ranging from 20 - 25 points against the government. In anyones books, that's huge. absolutely agree. In July 2018 though lab were roughly neck and neck with the cons. Once corbyn said he was I favpur of a a second referendumin july 2019. It was labs undoing. Both were polling at 25% at this point By Oct 19 tories were at 35% Labour at 25% This is whybid be wary of anything until the run up to an election. Manifestos matter. " Given that by mid 2019 the majority of the public polling was in favour of a second referendum, that doesn’t hold up. Also post-2019 analysis revealed that Corbyn himself was the reason for Labour’s loss - not the second referendum. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. The circle continues, this is the problem with the 1st past the post system we have. Yes the mps are reaping what the sew. When bojo was kicked out he was 3 point behind sks. Sunak is now over 20 points behind? The grass isn't always greener. Conservatives weren't" ready for rishi" and neither was the uk. This is whaybhappens when you force and unelected PM on people." Twice. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
It’s not spin to say that an 80 seat majority shouldn’t be turned over in one term, regardless of the events surrounding the previous election.
"Thatajority was an anomaly. At least that's what we're always told. Things will get back to normal next GE. At least that's what we're told. Now we're told, the Tories shouldn't be losing that majority. Spin, spin, spin | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election." Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
It’s not spin to say that an 80 seat majority shouldn’t be turned over in one term, regardless of the events surrounding the previous election.
Thatajority was an anomaly. At least that's what we're always told.
Things will get back to normal next GE. At least that's what we're told.
Now we're told, the Tories shouldn't be losing that majority.
Spin, spin, spin "Since dec 2019 I’ve been saying on every platform I’ve had that 80 seats is a two-term majority (at least it should be) But sure. You do you, boo. | |||
| |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen." Realistically we may be in hung parliament territory. The shy Tory is still very much a thing. The fact that Uxbridge was so close is still a disaster for the tories even if they held the seat. | |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
It’s not spin to say that an 80 seat majority shouldn’t be turned over in one term, regardless of the events surrounding the previous election.
Thatajority was an anomaly. At least that's what we're always told.
Things will get back to normal next GE. At least that's what we're told.
Now we're told, the Tories shouldn't be losing that majority.
Spin, spin, spin
Since dec 2019 I’ve been saying on every platform I’ve had that 80 seats is a two-term majority (at least it should be)
But sure. You do you, boo."Of course you have. You just happen to disagree with everyone else, and of course you're right. I bet when the Tories won you said it was an anomaly. Still using pet names to make yourself feel bigger than others? That's quite sad  | |||
| |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen." Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? | |||
| |||
"What these results reveal is that there’s no such thing as a safe Tory seat now. Given that an 80 seat majority should see a party safely in power for two terms, it’s clear that the Conservative Party is utterly incompetent. Were constantly told that 2019 was not a true reflection of the countries mood on issues apart from Brexit. Now it's they shouldn't be losing such a majority
Spin, spin, spin.
Pretty sure most of us expect a Labour win at the next GE
It’s not spin to say that an 80 seat majority shouldn’t be turned over in one term, regardless of the events surrounding the previous election.
Thatajority was an anomaly. At least that's what we're always told.
Things will get back to normal next GE. At least that's what we're told.
Now we're told, the Tories shouldn't be losing that majority.
Spin, spin, spin
Since dec 2019 I’ve been saying on every platform I’ve had that 80 seats is a two-term majority (at least it should be)
But sure. You do you, boo.
Of course you have. You just happen to disagree with everyone else, and of course you're right. I bet when the Tories won you said it was an anomaly.
Still using pet names to make yourself feel bigger than others? That's quite sad
"No, as I’ve stated on here previously it was obvious that the tories would win in 2019, as soon as the election was called it was obviously a mistake by Corbyn and Swinson. We had a minority government losing parliamentary votes on a near daily basis, albeit one with a leader who was popular with the electorate. It was ludicrous to agree an election with no strings attached. | |||
"The BBC says there is evidence of tactical voting in both Lab and Lib victories" Good. More of this, please. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously?" Libs were always likely to win that seat but they did credit Lab and Green voters for 'lending' their vote | |||
"The good news is that it is best to lose seats now . These losses are completely irrelevant. The Conseratives are still in power and will be for quite some time . Thw only results that matter are those from a general election. Opinion polls of by elections are irrelevant . Ordinary people do not want to be at the mercy of trade unions, woke warriors or intimidation from a vocal minority attempting to present their views as popular. Most people still support family values and recognise that every single pay rise is paid for by either increased prices in the private sector or by the tax payer . At the next election people will have to think hard about who they vote for an why . This will be the first time anyone has had to do this since 2019. If rational voters do this it is another win for the Comservatives . Most people prefer to pay their way in life ." Nobody rational is looking at the past 13 years dvd demanding more of the same. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election." "Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen." "Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously?" The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim." Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? | |||
| |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no?" Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no?" I suspect you're right. There will be more Lab seats currently sitting in second place which will be turned to red. I see Lab winning by allowing Libs to take the seats where they are currently second (mostly SW). Scotland I cannot call because if we thunk jts fucked here, its even worse there. I don't see Libs challenging to become the second biggest party though. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders." PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. | |||
"I've just noticed that the title of this thread is "the wining number". A case of sour grapes ?" It was meant to the winning not wining with a huge dollop of sarcasm. In my defense it was early! Lol | |||
"Polls are ranging from 20 - 25 points against the government. In anyones books, that's huge. absolutely agree. In July 2018 though lab were roughly neck and neck with the cons. Once corbyn said he was I favpur of a a second referendumin july 2019. It was labs undoing. Both were polling at 25% at this point By Oct 19 tories were at 35% Labour at 25% This is whybid be wary of anything until the run up to an election. Manifestos matter. Given that by mid 2019 the majority of the public polling was in favour of a second referendum, that doesn’t hold up. Also post-2019 analysis revealed that Corbyn himself was the reason for Labour’s loss - not the second referendum. " You're going to have tonprove the majority of the uk wanted a second referendum in July 2019. I believe corbyn announced it on 9th July 2019? This is exactly when the game widens between labour and cons | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR." Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power?" They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. " It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. | |||
"Polls are ranging from 20 - 25 points against the government. In anyones books, that's huge. absolutely agree. In July 2018 though lab were roughly neck and neck with the cons. Once corbyn said he was I favpur of a a second referendumin july 2019. It was labs undoing. Both were polling at 25% at this point By Oct 19 tories were at 35% Labour at 25% This is whybid be wary of anything until the run up to an election. Manifestos matter. Given that by mid 2019 the majority of the public polling was in favour of a second referendum, that doesn’t hold up. Also post-2019 analysis revealed that Corbyn himself was the reason for Labour’s loss - not the second referendum. You're going to have tonprove the majority of the uk wanted a second referendum in July 2019. I believe corbyn announced it on 9th July 2019? This is exactly when the game widens between labour and cons" https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/majority-of-voters-now-back-a-second-brexit-referendum-poll-shows_uk_5b5ac8e2e4b0b15aba972c10/ There was also a poll in March 2019 that showed both sides even at 43%. And then of course more voters actually voted for second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones in the 2019 election itself - though that’s not representative of the result thanks to FPTP. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. " It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre." Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? " So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre." Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend." Everything is faux
You initially said lab/libs/greens. 2 of those advocate a change to the system. They're not grown up though.
You need to find utopia and fairly quickly, it appears reality is a bit too much for you. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. Everything is faux
You initially said lab/libs/greens. 2 of those advocate a change to the system. They're not grown up though.
You need to find utopia and fairly quickly, it appears reality is a bit too much for you."And the largest of them (and thus the vital party) doesn’t want PR - not grown up. You’re so desperate to score a gotcha that you’ve stopped making any sense at all. Have a great day, eh?  | |||
"Polls are ranging from 20 - 25 points against the government. In anyones books, that's huge. absolutely agree. In July 2018 though lab were roughly neck and neck with the cons. Once corbyn said he was I favpur of a a second referendumin july 2019. It was labs undoing. Both were polling at 25% at this point By Oct 19 tories were at 35% Labour at 25% This is whybid be wary of anything until the run up to an election. Manifestos matter. Given that by mid 2019 the majority of the public polling was in favour of a second referendum, that doesn’t hold up. Also post-2019 analysis revealed that Corbyn himself was the reason for Labour’s loss - not the second referendum. You're going to have tonprove the majority of the uk wanted a second referendum in July 2019. I believe corbyn announced it on 9th July 2019? This is exactly when the game widens between labour and cons https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/majority-of-voters-now-back-a-second-brexit-referendum-poll-shows_uk_5b5ac8e2e4b0b15aba972c10/ There was also a poll in March 2019 that showed both sides even at 43%. And then of course more voters actually voted for second referendum backing parties than Brexit ones in the 2019 election itself - though that’s not representative of the result thanks to FPTP." So you used 1 poll in 2018? And a poll in march which had it at even stevens. Not exactly proof that in July 2019 the majority of brits backed a second referendum on brexit" Another lie from yourself I guess. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. Everything is faux
You initially said lab/libs/greens. 2 of those advocate a change to the system. They're not grown up though.
You need to find utopia and fairly quickly, it appears reality is a bit too much for you.
And the largest of them (and thus the vital party) doesn’t want PR - not grown up.
You’re so desperate to score a gotcha that you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Have a great day, eh? "
I'm making perfect sense, you didn't say Labour weren't grown up, you said 'leaders', being that you mentioned all 3, that would imply all 3.
I'm not desperate to score anything, you want utopia and anyone who disagrees with you is regularly insulted. Get back to reality mate  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe you could kindly explain why polling changed so dramatically when corbyn announced a 2nd referendum if he got into power. Was there any other reason it could have been?" As I recall, polling for labour dipped around that time, but support for a second referendum remained fairly consistently ahead from late 2018 onwards. Excuse the wiki link, but the data is referenced: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_the_Brexit_withdrawal_agreement | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. Everything is faux
You initially said lab/libs/greens. 2 of those advocate a change to the system. They're not grown up though.
You need to find utopia and fairly quickly, it appears reality is a bit too much for you.
And the largest of them (and thus the vital party) doesn’t want PR - not grown up.
You’re so desperate to score a gotcha that you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Have a great day, eh?
I'm making perfect sense "I’m certain you think you are, yes | |||
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit! | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. Everything is faux
You initially said lab/libs/greens. 2 of those advocate a change to the system. They're not grown up though.
You need to find utopia and fairly quickly, it appears reality is a bit too much for you.
And the largest of them (and thus the vital party) doesn’t want PR - not grown up.
You’re so desperate to score a gotcha that you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Have a great day, eh?
I'm making perfect sense
I’m certain you think you are, yes "Patronising again rather than addressing the point made? That's not like you | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!"And there lies the problem. Corbyn is a hero to far too many people. Just as Johnson is. We need a Blair type leader. Not a 'far' either way. | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!"I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’ Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’ Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns. Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling. | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!
I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’
Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’
Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns.
Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling. "He really was a disaster! For a time I thought SKS would be in more of a Blair mould (and certainly wants to be seen that way inc recent cosying up with Blair). That requires strength of conviction. Pinning your colours to the mast and be damned. THIS is what I and my party stand for, vote for me or don’t! But increasingly he is starting to feel vague and flip floppy to me. In this ongoing desire to just be popular these politicians just become a grey samey blob! | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!
I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’
Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’
Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns.
Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling.
He really was a disaster!
For a time I thought SKS would be in more of a Blair mould (and certainly wants to be seen that way inc recent cosying up with Blair). That requires strength of conviction. Pinning your colours to the mast and be damned. THIS is what I and my party stand for, vote for me or don’t!
But increasingly he is starting to feel vague and flip floppy to me.
In this ongoing desire to just be popular these politicians just become a grey samey blob! "All SKS has to do is pin and if his policoes looks decent enough on paper he'll romp home. | |||
"Maybe you could kindly explain why polling changed so dramatically when corbyn announced a 2nd referendum if he got into power. Was there any other reason it could have been? As I recall, polling for labour dipped around that time, but support for a second referendum remained fairly consistently ahead from late 2018 onwards. Excuse the wiki link, but the data is referenced: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_the_Brexit_withdrawal_agreement" Again not whay yous said. | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!
I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’
Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’
Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns.
Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling.
He really was a disaster!
For a time I thought SKS would be in more of a Blair mould (and certainly wants to be seen that way inc recent cosying up with Blair). That requires strength of conviction. Pinning your colours to the mast and be damned. THIS is what I and my party stand for, vote for me or don’t!
But increasingly he is starting to feel vague and flip floppy to me.
In this ongoing desire to just be popular these politicians just become a grey samey blob!
All SKS has to do is pin and if his policoes looks decent enough on paper he'll romp home. "Possibly (probably) but never count the Tories out. That magic money tree could see pre-election tax cuts and sweeties for the plebs! | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!
I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’
Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’
Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns.
Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling.
He really was a disaster!
For a time I thought SKS would be in more of a Blair mould (and certainly wants to be seen that way inc recent cosying up with Blair). That requires strength of conviction. Pinning your colours to the mast and be damned. THIS is what I and my party stand for, vote for me or don’t!
But increasingly he is starting to feel vague and flip floppy to me.
In this ongoing desire to just be popular these politicians just become a grey samey blob!
All SKS has to do is pin and if his policoes looks decent enough on paper he'll romp home.
Possibly (probably) but never count the Tories out. That magic money tree could see pre-election tax cuts and sweeties for the plebs!"I'm not ruling out the Tories yet, almost but not quite. I truly believe the electorate will decide that the Tories need a break and vote in Labour. It will be much much closer than it needs to be if Starmer doesn't sort his shit out though. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe you could kindly explain why polling changed so dramatically when corbyn announced a 2nd referendum if he got into power. Was there any other reason it could have been? As I recall, polling for labour dipped around that time, but support for a second referendum remained fairly consistently ahead from late 2018 onwards. Excuse the wiki link, but the data is referenced: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_the_Brexit_withdrawal_agreement Again not whay yous said. " I provided you with data revealing that throughout 2019 (and indeed much of 2018) support for a second referendum was higher than those against, including after Corbyn announced the policy. Sorry that it doesn’t back up your claim that the second referendum sunk Corbyn. Post-election polling revealed that Corbyn himself was the problem, not the referendum policy. | |||
"I won’t get into a discussion on 2nd referendums etc but will say that Corbyn was a problem all by himself. He flip flopped around and refused to make an unambiguous clear statement on his position. That and some of his previous dubious associations (which were very successfully weaponised by the right wing media) gave the impression of someone who could not be trusted. So we got Boris
With hindsight I have to conclude Corbyn was the lesser of two evils!
The roundly ridiculed universal broadband policy was positively prescient once Covid hit!
I argued this at the time - free broadband at a time when the red tops are saying ‘labour will bankrupt the country’
Similar policy, worded differently - ‘Labour will invest in high speed broadband across the country, which will be provided free for the lowest earners’
Much easier sell, and doesn’t sound like unicorns.
Corbyn was a disaster - he’s a decent man, but by Christ his leadership was appalling.
He really was a disaster!
For a time I thought SKS would be in more of a Blair mould (and certainly wants to be seen that way inc recent cosying up with Blair). That requires strength of conviction. Pinning your colours to the mast and be damned. THIS is what I and my party stand for, vote for me or don’t!
But increasingly he is starting to feel vague and flip floppy to me.
In this ongoing desire to just be popular these politicians just become a grey samey blob!
All SKS has to do is pin and if his policoes looks decent enough on paper he'll romp home.
Possibly (probably) but never count the Tories out. That magic money tree could see pre-election tax cuts and sweeties for the plebs!"As things currently stand given sks flip flops and love of fence sitting and absolutely avoiding question I jave it as a hung parliament. Certainly the tories regardless won't get enough votes. A lot for me hinges on his manifesto then he will finally come under scrutiny and we will see his policies. I'm not against voting SKS. I certainly won't be voting rishi. But he needs a strong manifesto that appeals to centrists( I think the left would vote for him regardless) and I think the tory turnout would be abysmal. I'll be surprised if the election gets over 50% of voter turnout tbh. | |||
| |||
"When you try to assemble the (any) benefits of 13 years of them in power, it gets really tough to find much. That's the reckoning come a general election that will be highlighted, on top of what has happened in these by-elections. What have they done to the country? I think we realised they've done next to nothing for the country, unlike themselves and their backers " This doesn't matter to Tory voters though. | |||
"When you try to assemble the (any) benefits of 13 years of them in power, it gets really tough to find much. That's the reckoning come a general election that will be highlighted, on top of what has happened in these by-elections. What have they done to the country? I think we realised they've done next to nothing for the country, unlike themselves and their backers This doesn't matter to Tory voters though. " Die-hard true blue tories are facing a demographic war though. The party need to appeal to more than their base, because their base is an ageing, falling section of society. The only age demographic that consistently votes majority Tory is now 55+ | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election." "Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen." "Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously?" "The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim." "Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no?" You are looking at it from your own point of view, which is to get rid of the Tories. The Labour party will be looking at it from a different point of view, which is to sweep the country and win a resounding majority at the next general election. If they are going to do that, SKS has to take votes away from the Lib Dems. At the moment, he doesn't seem to be doing so. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? You are looking at it from your own point of view, which is to get rid of the Tories. The Labour party will be looking at it from a different point of view, which is to sweep the country and win a resounding majority at the next general election. If they are going to do that, SKS has to take votes away from the Lib Dems. At the moment, he doesn't seem to be doing so." Labour will publicly say that, yes. Internally they’ll consider a non-aggression pact with the LD’s in some seats, I’m certain. (just as they did in 1997) | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend." I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts." Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. " It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say | |||
"When you try to assemble the (any) benefits of 13 years of them in power, it gets really tough to find much. That's the reckoning come a general election that will be highlighted, on top of what has happened in these by-elections. What have they done to the country? I think we realised they've done next to nothing for the country, unlike themselves and their backers This doesn't matter to Tory voters though. Die-hard true blue tories are facing a demographic war though. The party need to appeal to more than their base, because their base is an ageing, falling section of society. The only age demographic that consistently votes majority Tory is now 55+" I hope you're right. But as the past several elections have shown us. The Tory propaganda machine and supporting press are all powerful. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say "But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no? So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done? "The latest example being The Netherlands?? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??"Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done? "I don’t need to take anything into account because I have what I need already. I think I know how PR would pan out in this country and those are my thoughts, aligned with the majority of people
Are you happy living in the UK? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others. "And the PM just resigned. Why? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?"A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years."Why did he resign? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
I don’t need to take anything into account because I have what I need already. I think I know how PR would pan out in this country and those are my thoughts, aligned with the majority of people
Are you happy living in the UK?"You think you know how PR would pan out? What are you basing this on? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?"More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully? Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system? "You're avoiding the question. How very politician like. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like."I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no? If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad? "It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real. I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you."And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working? What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote? Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no? | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you.
And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working?
What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote?
Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no?
"What about them?? His concerns are valid. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make him wrong. Yet again, you know better than anyone else. Bizarre. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you.
And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working?
What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote?
Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no?
What about them??
His concerns are valid. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make him wrong.
Yet again, you know better than anyone else. Bizarre."I literally said ‘concerns are valid’ You really are struggling with comprehension today aren’t you? And you still didn’t answer my question about whether you think FPTP is fair and representative or not. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you.
And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working?
What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote?
Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no?
What about them??
His concerns are valid. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make him wrong.
Yet again, you know better than anyone else. Bizarre.
I literally said ‘concerns are valid’ You really are struggling with comprehension today aren’t you?
And you still didn’t answer my question about whether you think FPTP is fair and representative or not. "I didn't answer you're question because you've refused to answer mine
As long as you keep trying to patronise people you'll always look like a bully, it's not a good look.
I'm all for PR but I'll also defend someone who has valid concerns. | |||
"So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?" In my (very limited) experience, yes. I lived in Germany for a few years and, every time the conversation got round to politics, people would complain that the government could never get anything done. It was the number one complaint, and the only thing that all sides could agree on. Many people expressed admiration for the British system where the government could always get things changed when they needed to. | |||
"So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done? In my (very limited) experience, yes. I lived in Germany for a few years and, every time the conversation got round to politics, people would complain that the government could never get anything done. It was the number one complaint, and the only thing that all sides could agree on. Many people expressed admiration for the British system where the government could always get things changed when they needed to." I could do what others often do on here and say your anecdotal story is not evidence. I could say prove it! I could say do you have a link to evidence, no not THAT evidence, other evidence from reputable sources, no that source is not reputable in my opinion I want another source. I could, but I won’t | |||
| |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you.
And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working?
What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote?
Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no?
What about them??
His concerns are valid. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make him wrong.
Yet again, you know better than anyone else. Bizarre.
I literally said ‘concerns are valid’ You really are struggling with comprehension today aren’t you?
And you still didn’t answer my question about whether you think FPTP is fair and representative or not. "Yes FPTP is fair and representative for all the constituencies in the country, vote for your MP, party with the most MP's leads the country. Whataboutism leading the way, what about all those people who voted for another MP, well what about them? How are they represented, by their MP, but they didn't vote for that MP, so what, that MP is there to support all constituents regardless of who they voted for. But I don't like that party, now we are getting down to it, it is all about you and you are voting for a party not an MP, i can see where you are going wrong. I obviously made the lsat part up to speed up the conclusion that we FPTP and as a country that is what we want so tough... | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. " Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. | |||
"A swing of 23.7% in Selby is proof Labour can win the next election. Is it? Labour had a double digit lead in the opinion polls, and yet they only managed to win 1 of the 3 seats available. Worse still, the Tories managed to keep hold of one. Labour were expecting an easy victory, and it didn't happen. Not been following this at all but was there any tactical voting at play here? Re: the seat the Lib Dems won (don’t even know which seats were up for by-election) was that ever a likely Labour win or were the Lib Dems always in second place contender position previously? The Lib Dems were always the second choice in Somerton and Frome, and yesterday's vote shows that nothing has changed. If SKS wants to lead the country, he needs to be converting those Lib Dem voters to Labour. Yesterday's results would seem to suggest that he isn't achieving that aim. Not sure I fully agree. It is surely more important (to them) to take away blue seats and convert them red BUT where it us clear yellow has a better chance then let them take it. That is tactical voting with the intention of destroying the Tories is it not? I do not know this or have the data, but I suspect across the UK there are more seats that have a red second place and can convert Tory to Labour than there are yellow second place that can convert Tory to Lib Dem? So a possible (probable) scenario with tactical voting is a slim Labour majority with the Lib Dens challenging Conservatives for second largest party. Yes/no? Yeah, as has always been the case - tactical voting properly implemented would destroy the tories. If we had grown up leaders we could create a lab/Lib/green alliance with the ultimate aim of implementing PR once in power. But we don’t have grown up leaders. PR isn't going to happen. The Libs deputy leader this morning was saying how 'broken' our FPTP system is. The problem is neither Con nor Lab want PR. Nope, why would they change the system that locks them in power? They wouldn't. To say that if they don't implement it, they're not grown ups is ridiculous. It’s really not. FPTP is an antiquated system that doesn’t accurately represent the electorate. We have systems in place that cement this faux democracy from the debating halls of Oxford onwards. It really is. The Lib Dems are the biggest party pushing for an alternative system. They asked the public in 2011 and the public overwhelmingly voted to stick with the status quo. I know, you'll argue that wasn't PR but it was what the Lib Dems went with, remember they are the biggest party advocating it. To say nearly 70% of those voters are not grown up is nothing but condescension towards your fellow citizens. Again, you must be correct and everyone else wrong. This is getting beyond bizarre. Did I ever mention anything about voters not being grown up, or have you invented that? So politicians who won't vote for it are not grown up but electorate who won't vote for it are? As I said, this is getting beyond bizarre. Politicians who won’t vote for it because they’re protected by the current system are not grown up, correct. The electorate who didn’t vote for a faux PR system that was overly complicated and confusing are grown up. This ain’t hard to comprehend. I can see why you are so frustrated with everything, you constantly back the losing horse. We don’t want PR, nothing would ever get done. Voted against by the electorate. Brexit again you can not accept the electorate view. It’s tough and as I said I can see how this skews your views and you end up as the last person standing and arguing on many fronts. Most modern democracies have some form of PR. Do they not get anything done? In fact the only countries in Europe which use FPTP are the U.K and the mighty democratic state of Belarus. But I’m sure you knew that already. It doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing, it’s what the people of our country want that matters, you are simply out of step with the majority of the country. You know that though and you can’t believe why so many more people are wrong than right like you, they must not be adults as you say
But your argument against PR was that nothing would ever get done - so surely it makes sense to take into account how other systems work to consider the validity of your claim, no?
So, those other nations who use PR - is it true that they get nothing done?
The latest example being The Netherlands??
Yes, they use PR, and generally work under coalitions, like a great many others.
And the PM just resigned. Why?
A PM resigning isn’t an argument against PR. We’ve had 4 PM’s in as many years.
Why did he resign?
More to the point, why are you trying to use one example to somehow refute PR as a system of office, when we have ample evidence from around the world that such systems can and indeed do work very successfully?
Do you think FPTP is a fair and representative system?
You're avoiding the question. How very politician like.
I just think it’s a strange tactic to suggest that PR is bad based upon one failed government. Surely one could equally look at U.K govt since 2016 and suggest that FPTP is an unworkable system, no?
If a patient dies during a heart transplant, does that mean that heart transplants are somehow bad?
It's not odd at all. Notme believes that PR will result in stalemates. The situation in The Netherlands is proof that his worries are very real.
I'm not even sure why I need to explain this to you.
And what about all the other nations that use PR? Including the Netherlands under normal working?
What about our FPTP in late 2019 when we had a minority govt. that couldn’t win a parliamentary vote?
Concerns are valid, of course - but they should be considered against evidence, no?
What about them??
His concerns are valid. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make him wrong.
Yet again, you know better than anyone else. Bizarre.
I literally said ‘concerns are valid’ You really are struggling with comprehension today aren’t you?
And you still didn’t answer my question about whether you think FPTP is fair and representative or not.
Yes FPTP is fair and representative for all the constituencies in the country, vote for your MP, party with the most MP's leads the country.
Whataboutism leading the way, what about all those people who voted for another MP, well what about them? How are they represented, by their MP, but they didn't vote for that MP, so what, that MP is there to support all constituents regardless of who they voted for. But I don't like that party, now we are getting down to it, it is all about you and you are voting for a party not an MP, i can see where you are going wrong. I obviously made the lsat part up to speed up the conclusion that we FPTP and as a country that is what we want so tough... "One of the arguments against PR is the loss of constituency MPs who represent their constituents. While some MPs do a good job I think it is clear that they are forced to obey the whip and tow the party line first and represent constituents second. Or if you are Boris Johnson barely set foot in your constituency or even remember you have one! | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented." As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. " Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. " But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties." Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting." But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate)." If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place." And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better "Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market? After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right? | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better
Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market?
After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right?"If the majority want back in, back in it is. The difference here is I accept that I can’t have it my own way all of the time… probably makes me more a man of the people than the self projected socialists amongst us. Interesting isn’t it | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better
Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market?
After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right?
If the majority want back in, back in it is.
The difference here is I accept that I can’t have it my own way all of the time… probably makes me more a man of the people than the self projected socialists amongst us. Interesting isn’t it"Socialism isn’t about doing things that increase wealth inequality and reduce citizens rights just because some people have been conned into thinking it’s in their interests | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better
Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market?
After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right?
If the majority want back in, back in it is.
The difference here is I accept that I can’t have it my own way all of the time… probably makes me more a man of the people than the self projected socialists amongst us. Interesting isn’t it
Socialism isn’t about doing things that increase wealth inequality and reduce citizens rights just because some people have been conned into thinking it’s in their interests "You do like to answer the question in your mind rather than one that we are actually discussing. On that note have a lovely Saturday I’m off for a bit of clay pigeon shooting. | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better
Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market?
After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right?
If the majority want back in, back in it is.
The difference here is I accept that I can’t have it my own way all of the time… probably makes me more a man of the people than the self projected socialists amongst us. Interesting isn’t it
Socialism isn’t about doing things that increase wealth inequality and reduce citizens rights just because some people have been conned into thinking it’s in their interests
You do like to answer the question in your mind rather than one that we are actually discussing.
On that note have a lovely Saturday I’m off for a bit of clay pigeon shooting. "Well you will continually misrepresent what people’s political beliefs are, so what’s a guy supposed to do? Have a great morning | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better
Hypothetical - given the now consistent majority view that leaving the EU was the incorrect decision, at what point do we start making moves towards closer integration with the bloc via customs union/single market?
After all, a clear majority seem in favour of it, right?"If a person wants such things, which party do they vote for? I'm guessing lib dems though not checked out their position for a while, they did seem more committed to reversing the vote than others. Also possibly the greens. With Labour, although they say closer to the EU they do not say what that actually means. SKS has ruled out customs union/ single market so probably rules them out. I say probably because SKS may flip on that decision once in office | |||
"The AV for me wasn't proportional representation which is why it failed so badly. It was an attempt at a stich up to ensure tories fail to get numbers. In a primary and secondary choice system. I dont mind PR I think those pushing it need to remember that( iirc) im 2015 if we had PR in its usual accepted format (the total votes are divided among the parties and they get their share of total votes as mps ) Ukip would have had something like 70 mps and conservatives 260. The problem comes with devolved govs. The snp would end up with much lower numbers tbf acotland already somewhat under represented in parliament( I think they should have 80 seats if split correctly) I honestly think PR works against Lab/lib/green. It would lead to a greater rise in populist parties in ukip and brexit party. With very little advertising, next to no shows on question time and other political programs. Reform uk are polling higher than greens and just 3% behind libs. What you'd actually get is likely a conservative government allying with a further right party. Agree with this. AV was not PR. It was simply too complicated and turned people off. All you say is true about minority parties getting seats in Parliament with PR but surely that is the only true form of representative democracy? While I don’t/didn’t like UKIP if several million people did then they should be represented. As I said. Indont mind PR. It has its benefits vs FPTP. FPTP also has benefits vs PR More simply a warning. As over the years when I've discussed PR. I don't think people realised it tended to edge more towards populist right of centre parties and that it would have seen a raft of new mps who will be the absolute opposite of what left of centre voters wish for. Exactly this, parties springing up all over the place with some challenging views, but hey you reap what you sow and before you know it “far’ becomes mainstream political influence. But surely that is actual representation? Just because you or I find some political views not to our liking, if sufficient people agree with those views shouldn’t they have a voice? Does it not also reduce the chance of the bigger mainstream parties being hijacked by internal pressure groups (thinking Labour and Momentum and Conservatives and the ERG). Does it not provide natural homes for all views? Why shouldn’t there be a few Communists and a few Fascists in Parliament? There in open view rather than operating in the shadows within the mainstream parties. Because they get a voice and become part of the decision making from a very narrow band minority. I want (which we have) the majority of people in my area or any other area of the country to have the representation they have asked for, not having their choice hijacked by fringe groups hell bent on getting their feet under the table with alternative methods of voting. But that is not full representation. I think the British people are generally fairly moderate. The likelihood of suddenly having huge Communist or Fascist parties dominating Parliament is pretty small. The centre ground (and centre/left and centre/right would always dominate). If no one party has sufficient majority then the centre(ish) parties need to work together and compromise to keep the extremists out. Compromise is good because what we actually have now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place. And that takes us right back to my opening comments around never getting anything done as it is compromise after compromise. There will always be a majority and a minority, people really need to learn the majority make the decisions and also learn to accept it. Brexit is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it is played out on here every day for all to see! The vocal few that can't accept the majority decision and complain that their views have not been taken into consideration and their views are the only correct views. Selfish, self centred and frankly not the socialists they like to consider themselves as. Ahhh that feels a lot better "Glad you feel better. Don’t hold back now. Get it off your chest. It’s good to talk!
I know what you are saying and agree that there is a possibility of that. But the 2010 coalition got plenty done!
However, you ignored one of the points I made “...now is short-termism flip flopping as govt changes blue to red to blue to red etc with subsequent govts undoing what previous govts put in place."
There is a distinct possibility of the next Labour govt undoing a significant chunk of what the Conservatives have done these past 13yrs (or trying to). Then when it switches back to Tory they will undo much of what Labour have done ad-infinitum. Harder to undo things when you have developed policy through negotiation, compromise and consensus.
Then again I would say that as a centrist | |||
