Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Yes it is currently working so well?
Well UKIP aren't running around parliament calling the shots . Whatever the system , you'd find something to gripe about !
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Both main parties would describe themselves as having a broad range of views.
Both have always had their extremists, usually in small numbers, allowing the more sensible majority to prevail.
We now have Momentum in control of Labour. They threaten to deselect MPs, and councillors. This could change the Labour Party into something completely different from the Broad Church that they currently claim to be.
The Tories also have their own problems. The ERG is clearly a party within a party. They have their own leadership, their own whip, and seem to be able to dictate to the PM.
I don't think that much of the electorate can be satisfied with the current state of our politics.
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Both main parties would describe themselves as having a broad range of views.
Both have always had their extremists, usually in small numbers, allowing the more sensible majority to prevail.
We now have Momentum in control of Labour. They threaten to deselect MPs, and councillors. This could change the Labour Party into something completely different from the Broad Church that they currently claim to be.
The Tories also have their own problems. The ERG is clearly a party within a party. They have their own leadership, their own whip, and seem to be able to dictate to the PM.
I don't think that much of the electorate can be satisfied with the current state of our politics.
I agree with all of that.
But that does not mean that politicians (on all sides) are not capable of making things even worse. As the Chinese insult goes:-
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Yes it is currently working so well?
Well UKIP aren't running around parliament calling the shots . Whatever the system , you'd find something to gripe about !
That's a really silly answer.
The obvious reason that UKIP aren't running around Parliament calling the shots, is that they didn't get enough votes.
I merely pointed out an example that showed our system is flawed.
Forget the parties involved.
Explain to me how, in a well thought out system, that one party can get 1.5 million votes, and 56 seats, the other with 4 million votes and one seat?
Also the Lib Dems, and DUP both got 8 seats. The Lib Dems got almost 2.5 million votes, and the DUP 184,000.
I have lived in Swansea West for the majority of my voting life.
Alan Williams was the MP for 46 years.
So I really only ever had the choice of voting for Alan Williams, or not voting.
I will try to continue to provide reasoned arguments, and you can continue with your silly comments, but maybe you could try to explain the above?
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Yes it is currently working so well?
Well UKIP aren't running around parliament calling the shots . Whatever the system , you'd find something to gripe about !
Maybe you could point to the successes of this Parliament?
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Both main parties would describe themselves as having a broad range of views.
Both have always had their extremists, usually in small numbers, allowing the more sensible majority to prevail.
We now have Momentum in control of Labour. They threaten to deselect MPs, and councillors. This could change the Labour Party into something completely different from the Broad Church that they currently claim to be.
The Tories also have their own problems. The ERG is clearly a party within a party. They have their own leadership, their own whip, and seem to be able to dictate to the PM.
I don't think that much of the electorate can be satisfied with the current state of our politics.
I agree with all of that.
But that does not mean that politicians (on all sides) are not capable of making things even worse. As the Chinese insult goes:-
"May you live in interesting times"...
What is the plan for Labour voters that aren't keen on Momentum, and Tory voters that hate the ERG?
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Maybe you could explain what you mean by this?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Maybe you could explain what you mean by this?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
I couldn't possibly , as is your usual m.o. you have already pointed out that I make silly comments and I can't back up anything with coherent argument . Sorry just not up to debating with the expert that you so obviously are . I will leave it to someone who is more intelligent than myself , to explain the obvious to you . Have a nice day !
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Maybe you could explain what you mean by this?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
I couldn't possibly , as is your usual m.o. you have already pointed out that I make silly comments and I can't back up anything with coherent argument . Sorry just not up to debating with the expert that you so obviously are . I will leave it to someone who is more intelligent than myself , to explain the obvious to you . Have a nice day !
I have never claimed to be an expert.
This comment just prove my observations to be correct.
This is the norm.
I post a comment, including my reasons behind it.
You then always disagree.
When you are asked about your reasons for disagreeing, you ignore the question, post a silly comment, or make an excuse, and go off at a tangent.
Its the pantomime debate oh yes he is, oh no he isn't, oh yes he is, but I wont say why.
You have posted a number of comments on this thread, but seem unable or unwilling to discuss any of them.
I believe your silly comments are silly, and don't further the debate in any way.
I am not sure what my m.o. is supposed to be, as your comment does not make that clear?
I am at a loss to explain why you wouldn't be keen to explain what you describe as the obvious. Unless of course, it is far from it.
Incidentally, I spent the last 19 years of my working life as a Sales Director, with the same company. Negative people rarely make a career in sales, let alone as the leader of 8 sales teams.
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Maybe you could explain what you mean by this?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
I couldn't possibly , as is your usual m.o. you have already pointed out that I make silly comments and I can't back up anything with coherent argument . Sorry just not up to debating with the expert that you so obviously are . I will leave it to someone who is more intelligent than myself , to explain the obvious to you . Have a nice day !
I have never claimed to be an expert.
This comment just prove my observations to be correct.
This is the norm.
I post a comment, including my reasons behind it.
You then always disagree.
When you are asked about your reasons for disagreeing, you ignore the question, post a silly comment, or make an excuse, and go off at a tangent.
Its the pantomime debate oh yes he is, oh no he isn't, oh yes he is, but I wont say why.
You have posted a number of comments on this thread, but seem unable or unwilling to discuss any of them.
I believe your silly comments are silly, and don't further the debate in any way.
I am not sure what my m.o. is supposed to be, as your comment does not make that clear?
I am at a loss to explain why you wouldn't be keen to explain what you describe as the obvious. Unless of course, it is far from it.
Incidentally, I spent the last 19 years of my working life as a Sales Director, with the same company. Negative people rarely make a career in sales, let alone as the leader of 8 sales teams.
Congratulations on your working achievements ...I've spent the last 30 years of my working life either owning and running my own business or being a retail manager on the high street , managing at the peak a team of 24 employees .One isn't capable of doing that , without the ability of being able to converse coherently . You really do make me laugh , apart from the fact I happen to be a woman , this isn't a flop your d i ck out and see who's got the biggest, competition . Now I intend leaving you to your ramblings in the hope , that phil might actually get the thread back on track , although I fear the worst , when all you are really looking for is an argument .
Not a party but definitely a reason why UK politics is dreadful.
Gotta love a system that benefits the two biggest parties at any given time, makes votes for other parties irrelevant if they have no chance of winning in their constituency, and encourages tactical voting for whichever of the two main parties you dislike the least as opposed to voting for what you actually believe in.
Of course, it'll never change as long as the party in power is going to benefit from it, which is going to be the case almost every time.
---
8. Voting age
Based on the above, would anyone like to guess what I voted for in the 2011 AV referendum?
If you chose "didn't vote", congratulations! I was 17 at the time, so naturally I'm not allowed to have an opinion on something that would've affected my life much more than 90 year old Doris who was allowed to vote.
The other problem with FPTP is that it makes your vote irrelevant in large parts of the UK. Places with massive majorities, or 2 parties in contention, neither of which are yours. Very few seats are genuinely open to all candidates.
AV was opposed by the Tories. And yet it is very close to how they vote for their own leader, where each vote loses the last place runner...
Probably the biggest example of this was the 2015 General Election.
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and one seat.
The SNP 4.7% and got 56 seats.
The total votes cast for each of them was around 1.5 million for the SNP, and almost 4 million for UKIP.
The Ulster Unionists got 2 seats with just over 100,000 votes.
There is probably a lesson somewhere in there for a new party.
So it does have some benefits.
Yea , what they failed to mention above is the system keeps extremism at bay . Minority parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are denied .
Maybe you could explain what you mean by this?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
I couldn't possibly , as is your usual m.o. you have already pointed out that I make silly comments and I can't back up anything with coherent argument . Sorry just not up to debating with the expert that you so obviously are . I will leave it to someone who is more intelligent than myself , to explain the obvious to you . Have a nice day !
I have never claimed to be an expert.
This comment just prove my observations to be correct.
This is the norm.
I post a comment, including my reasons behind it.
You then always disagree.
When you are asked about your reasons for disagreeing, you ignore the question, post a silly comment, or make an excuse, and go off at a tangent.
Its the pantomime debate oh yes he is, oh no he isn't, oh yes he is, but I wont say why.
You have posted a number of comments on this thread, but seem unable or unwilling to discuss any of them.
I believe your silly comments are silly, and don't further the debate in any way.
I am not sure what my m.o. is supposed to be, as your comment does not make that clear?
I am at a loss to explain why you wouldn't be keen to explain what you describe as the obvious. Unless of course, it is far from it.
Incidentally, I spent the last 19 years of my working life as a Sales Director, with the same company. Negative people rarely make a career in sales, let alone as the leader of 8 sales teams.
Congratulations on your working achievements ...I've spent the last 30 years of my working life either owning and running my own business or being a retail manager on the high street , managing at the peak a team of 24 employees .One isn't capable of doing that , without the ability of being able to converse coherently . You really do make me laugh , apart from the fact I happen to be a woman , this isn't a flop your d i ck out and see who's got the biggest, competition . Now I intend leaving you to your ramblings in the hope , that phil might actually get the thread back on track , although I fear the worst , when all you are really looking for is an argument .
dobiesdraw Posts: 1,280Member 11:17 Taking a Deeper Look at the "Negative Person"
According to Newsnight, Jeremy Corbyn announcing Labours plan to support a second referendum, appeared rather like a hostage making a video for his kidnappers.
Chuka Umunna NOT elected leader of Independents as MPs select Gavin Shuker to steer CHUKA Umunna has failed to become the de-facto leader of the newly-formed The Independent Group, with Gavin Shuker chosen instead.
'Politician'/Bully/Inverted snob...almost worth voting Tory to get rid of her...almost
To be fair Tom Watson had a much better response. Also some of the Tories were saying things like their hoped theirs would come back at some point in the future. I think a measured response will always go down better with the more moderate members of the public. Both lots left their parties because they didn't like the direction in which they were headed. I think that many people would prefer them to do this rather than just sitting there with their mouths shut collecting their pay cheques.
If you were in a pub and looked at her face at the start of the video, you would probably be expecting her to be starting a fight very soon.
Comments
Both have always had their extremists, usually in small numbers, allowing the more sensible majority to prevail.
We now have Momentum in control of Labour. They threaten to deselect MPs, and councillors. This could change the Labour Party into something completely different from the Broad Church that they currently claim to be.
The Tories also have their own problems. The ERG is clearly a party within a party. They have their own leadership, their own whip, and seem to be able to dictate to the PM.
I don't think that much of the electorate can be satisfied with the current state of our politics.
But that does not mean that politicians (on all sides) are not capable of making things even worse. As the Chinese insult goes:-
"May you live in interesting times"...
The obvious reason that UKIP aren't running around Parliament calling the shots, is that they didn't get enough votes.
I merely pointed out an example that showed our system is flawed.
Forget the parties involved.
Explain to me how, in a well thought out system, that one party can get 1.5 million votes, and 56 seats, the other with 4 million votes and one seat?
Also the Lib Dems, and DUP both got 8 seats. The Lib Dems got almost 2.5 million votes, and the DUP 184,000.
I have lived in Swansea West for the majority of my voting life.
Alan Williams was the MP for 46 years.
So I really only ever had the choice of voting for Alan Williams, or not voting.
I will try to continue to provide reasoned arguments, and you can continue with your silly comments, but maybe you could try to explain the above?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-creativity-cure/201611/taking-deeper-look-the-negative-person
If so it may be of some use to you.
And now back to the subject in hand .....
I was I was questioning why someone that spends so much time on this forum would rather make silly comments than engage in genuine debate?
You make many comments that you are unable or unwilling to back up with any coherent argument.
Where do they go?
Are all minority parties damaging?
The current system provides minority parties with enormous power on occasions where the main party has no overall majority. This applies currently to the DUP, and previously to the Lib Dems.
What gives us protection in whatever voting system we may have, is that the vast majority of the electorate in this country is pretty moderate.
This comment just prove my observations to be correct.
This is the norm.
I post a comment, including my reasons behind it.
You then always disagree.
When you are asked about your reasons for disagreeing, you ignore the question, post a silly comment, or make an excuse, and go off at a tangent.
Its the pantomime debate oh yes he is, oh no he isn't, oh yes he is, but I wont say why.
You have posted a number of comments on this thread, but seem unable or unwilling to discuss any of them.
I believe your silly comments are silly, and don't further the debate in any way.
I am not sure what my m.o. is supposed to be, as your comment does not make that clear?
I am at a loss to explain why you wouldn't be keen to explain what you describe as the obvious. Unless of course, it is far from it.
Incidentally, I spent the last 19 years of my working life as a Sales Director, with the same company. Negative people rarely make a career in sales, let alone as the leader of 8 sales teams.
dobiesdraw Posts: 1,280Member
11:17
Taking a Deeper Look at the "Negative Person"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-creativity-cure/201611/taking-deeper-look-the-negative-person
I brought my work experience into it, as a result of the above post.
This post has little to do with the thread, and is typical of your m.o. as I described.
You are the person bragging about achievements.
I am not looking for an argument, the purpose of a forum is debate.
Are you claiming the above response was in the spirit of debate?
The point I was making was that you are rarely willing, to engage in a debate.
This is yet another example.
I was genuinely looking for a debate, not an argument.
The proof of what I have said is here on this thread for all to see.
CHUKA Umunna has failed to become the de-facto leader of the newly-formed The Independent Group, with Gavin Shuker chosen instead.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1092253/independent-group-chuka-umunna-leader-elected-gavin-shuker
Also some of the Tories were saying things like their hoped theirs would come back at some point in the future.
I think a measured response will always go down better with the more moderate members of the public.
Both lots left their parties because they didn't like the direction in which they were headed.
I think that many people would prefer them to do this rather than just sitting there with their mouths shut collecting their pay cheques.
If you were in a pub and looked at her face at the start of the video, you would probably be expecting her to be starting a fight very soon.