Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" He's both and when people say they are not the same they are being a bit disingenuous, it's just a way of hiding anti semitism. Sure you can criticise the Israeli government and rightly so but to deny Isreals right to exist is to be anti semitic. In my opinion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html" Whataboutery? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? " Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern "So whataboutery then considering the OP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern
So whataboutery then considering the OP. "Ok perhaps you could point me in the direction of the other topics on the issue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern
So whataboutery then considering the OP.
Ok perhaps you could point me in the direction of the other topics on the issue?"Start your own thread perhaps? Perhaps then a topic you find uncomfortable confronting may not get diverted? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern
So whataboutery then considering the OP.
Ok perhaps you could point me in the direction of the other topics on the issue?
Start your own thread perhaps?
Perhaps then a topic you find uncomfortable confronting may not get diverted? "Ok let's see how that goes eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? Perhaps this book may hold some answers? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.html Whataboutery? Not at all I know some people are very concerned about anti semitism on here. I think that has conclusively proved around the labour issue So I have not doubt in my doubt this article will cause them great concern
So whataboutery then considering the OP.
Ok perhaps you could point me in the direction of the other topics on the issue?
Start your own thread perhaps?
Perhaps then a topic you find uncomfortable confronting may not get diverted?
Ok let's see how that goes eh?"You don’t need me to hold your hand mate you can do it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" Speculate no longer. There was a whole report into anti semitism within Labour. Ignore the Daily Mail/Express readers and go to the source. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ymchwiliadau-ac-archwiliadau/investigation-labour-party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" Same thing same people its a all a commie thing with them the hate what they are not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" I think you can safely put Corbyn and his disgusting supporters under the same category - they're Judeophobes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jezza has bee fighting racism all his life and his family went out to confront the black shirts in the 30s Hopefully he will be back soon "No he hasn't and back where? He will probably be kicked out of the party again soon along with 'thousands and thousands' of other racist idiots | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back "I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital "20,000 majority in islington Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital
20,000 majority in islington
Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area "FFS!? You are actually right about something  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital
20,000 majority in islington
Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area
FFS!? You are actually right about something "Thousands of people in islington are racists according to you? I'm surely people from the area will be happy to read your well informed views | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital
20,000 majority in islington
Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area
FFS!? You are actually right about something
Thousands of people in islington are racists according to you?
I'm surely people from the area will be happy to read your well informed views
"Did I say thousands? I said you were right about a hell of a lot of racists in one area. The rest were just misguided or dim | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital
20,000 majority in islington
Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area
FFS!? You are actually right about something
Thousands of people in islington are racists according to you?
I'm surely people from the area will be happy to read your well informed views
Did I say thousands? I said you were right about a hell of a lot of racists in one area. The rest were just misguided or dim"He ha ha epic backtracking I said there must be 1000s of racists in that area and you agreed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Be great to see him back
I can see him running for London Mayor, they love him in the capital
20,000 majority in islington
Hell of a lot of racists in 1 area
FFS!? You are actually right about something
Thousands of people in islington are racists according to you?
I'm surely people from the area will be happy to read your well informed views
Did I say thousands? I said you were right about a hell of a lot of racists in one area. The rest were just misguided or dim"Were the millions you voted for him racist too as by your logic ,they must be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, lets be generous to JC. He wasn’t leader for very long, but long enough to allow anti semitism to grow in Labour. He could have & should have dealt with it straight away. He didn’t, at best he missed it, at worst he created an environment for it to thrive and grow. It is now being dealt with, but still JC cannot simply accept things were wrong under his watch. Instead he and his followers are trying to turn this into a battle for the direction of Labour. The man & his supporters are crass, non empathetic idiots who should all be expelled from the Labour Party." Yeah that’s it really. That and he was just a bit shit losing to Boris and all.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, lets be generous to JC. He wasn’t leader for very long, but long enough to allow anti semitism to grow in Labour. He could have & should have dealt with it straight away. He didn’t, at best he missed it, at worst he created an environment for it to thrive and grow. It is now being dealt with, but still JC cannot simply accept things were wrong under his watch. Instead he and his followers are trying to turn this into a battle for the direction of Labour. The man & his supporters are crass, non empathetic idiots who should all be expelled from the Labour Party." Always a wise move to expell 100,000s of your support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, lets be generous to JC. He wasn’t leader for very long, but long enough to allow anti semitism to grow in Labour. He could have & should have dealt with it straight away. He didn’t, at best he missed it, at worst he created an environment for it to thrive and grow. It is now being dealt with, but still JC cannot simply accept things were wrong under his watch. Instead he and his followers are trying to turn this into a battle for the direction of Labour. The man & his supporters are crass, non empathetic idiots who should all be expelled from the Labour Party." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t know why people get so het up over Corbyn. He’s not going to be anything of note politically again. He’s a footnote in failure and has too much baggage. Got four more years of the current party to get through yet won’t that be fun? " True i still cant make my mind up if he is the worse labour leader they have ever had or if its still micheal foot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only some of the Early Day Motions signed by JC condemning antisemitism. ? That this House is appalled that a North London synagogue has been daubed with racist graffiti; expresses its sympathy to the members; condemns any attacks on places of worship of any religion; and calls for respect and tolerance of all faiths. Signed by Corbyn That this House, on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the expulsion of Jews from Britain, expresses its deep concern at the increase in the dissemination of antisemitic and racist materials in the United Kingdom; notes that none of the 21 antisemitic publications referred to the Attorney General by the Board of Deputies of British Jews since 1986 have resulted in prosecutions; believes that firm, swift and effective action must be taken to cure neo-Nazi activity; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such action against those responsible for these odious publications. Singed by Corbyn That this House notes the vile and anti-Semitic nature of the website www.catholicvoice.co.uk; notes that it is run by a known fascist and seeks to inspire hate against the Jewish community amongst others; understands that according to Nominet's WHOIS service it is based in the United Kingdom through ISP provider Plusnet in contradiction with that organisation's own hosting policies and remains available to be viewed by the world; calls on Plusnet to stop hosting the website content; and calls for the domain name to be revoked and believes that those who are writing, commissioning and uploading vile hate speech should face the full force of the law. Singed by Corbyn That this House condemns all forms of racism and anti-Semitism in sport; is disturbed by the recent racial discrimination and abuse highlighted in European football; calls for the adoption of all necessary measures to eliminate racism and anti-Semitism and to promote equal opportunities within sport; believes that more needs to be done to raise the awareness of those in sports and football management to engage black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in the UK at both the professional level and grass roots game to empower BME players, managers, coaches, referees and staff to set the agenda on race and diversity issues and to work collectively with the authorities to do so; and further believes that the landscape within British and European sport, especially football must change to a position of zero tolerance of racism." Dont be coming on here with your facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t know why people get so het up over Corbyn. He’s not going to be anything of note politically again. He’s a footnote in failure and has too much baggage. Got four more years of the current party to get through yet won’t that be fun? True i still cant make my mind up if he is the worse labour leader they have ever had or if its still micheal foot. "Well they were both actually left wing so there is that? I've said this a million times but if corbyn was so bad..I'm not sure what that makes Theresa may. The leader forced into a coalition with the DUP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t know why people get so het up over Corbyn. He’s not going to be anything of note politically again. He’s a footnote in failure and has too much baggage. Got four more years of the current party to get through yet won’t that be fun? True i still cant make my mind up if he is the worse labour leader they have ever had or if its still micheal foot.
Well they were both actually left wing so there is that?
I've said this a million times but if corbyn was so bad..I'm not sure what that makes Theresa may.
The leader forced into a coalition with the DUP
"I know right yet she still beat JC. Tragic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, lets be generous to JC. He wasn’t leader for very long, but long enough to allow anti semitism to grow in Labour. He could have & should have dealt with it straight away. He didn’t, at best he missed it, at worst he created an environment for it to thrive and grow. It is now being dealt with, but still JC cannot simply accept things were wrong under his watch. Instead he and his followers are trying to turn this into a battle for the direction of Labour. The man & his supporters are crass, non empathetic idiots who should all be expelled from the Labour Party. Always a wise move to expell 100,000s of your support." If they support anti semitism, let them go...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, lets be generous to JC. He wasn’t leader for very long, but long enough to allow anti semitism to grow in Labour. He could have & should have dealt with it straight away. He didn’t, at best he missed it, at worst he created an environment for it to thrive and grow. It is now being dealt with, but still JC cannot simply accept things were wrong under his watch. Instead he and his followers are trying to turn this into a battle for the direction of Labour. The man & his supporters are crass, non empathetic idiots who should all be expelled from the Labour Party. Always a wise move to expell 100,000s of your support. If they support anti semitism, let them go... " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t know why people get so het up over Corbyn. He’s not going to be anything of note politically again. He’s a footnote in failure and has too much baggage. Got four more years of the current party to get through yet won’t that be fun? True i still cant make my mind up if he is the worse labour leader they have ever had or if its still micheal foot.
Well they were both actually left wing so there is that?
I've said this a million times but if corbyn was so bad..I'm not sure what that makes Theresa may.
The leader forced into a coalition with the DUP
I know right yet she still beat JC. Tragic. "Yep he could not win even when up against T.May he may fair better trying to keep his brother out of troubled | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 4 wheels good, 2 wheels anti semitic. " So Boris is an Anti - Semitic as well is he ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tell right now that Im glad Jeremy Corbin was never (and can never be) made Prime Minister in this country and will break it down to 4 points 1. The first reason why he should never had been Prime Minister is because he was the least popular leader in the Opposition of the Government since records began in 1977. So for 46 years theres has never been a least popular leader in the Opposition than Jeremy Corbyn who was polling at -60 at the time which was lower than Michael Foot was polling. So if people think the real problem was Boris Johnson and his band of dogmatist at the time when he was in office, just imagine having Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Streetwho also happens to be a Brexiteer, a life long Brexiteer who's had a history of voting against further European integration again since the 1970s. So if people tried at the time to install the leasr popular leader in the Opposition in Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, it was a surest way of gurantee a backlash in England, a surest way of guranteeing a backlash as England fears the hard left and that backlash eventually lead to a Boris Johnson victory. 2. As Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer, it wouldnt of change anything regarding the Brexit Negotiations at the time. 3. For Jeremy Corbyn to have become Prime Minister, it was highly likely (giving his stance to the IRA and his stance on Scottish Independence) that he would've cut a deal with Nicola Sturgeon and asure her of support for another Scottish Referendum on Independence if the SNP had backed his bid to become Prime Minister at the time. So think about it in in this way, if thats the kind of horse trading that Corbyn engaged in to secure himself as Prime Minister by cutting a deal with the SNP that promised them another Referendum on Scotland if they were to have done so, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of wrangling over the deal the UK can get with the EU to Brexit was bad, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of playing Russian Roulette over our constitution over Brexit was bad, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of division, of rancour, of confusion and disunity over Brexit was bad, well imagine if Scotland had its Referendum and see how bad that could of been especially if on a hypethetical scenario (and I'm not saying this would happen) but on a hyperthetical scenario had they won, what do you think Scexit would of look like?? Would do you think the deal between Scotland and England would have look like?? If you thought 3 years and half years (at the time) took a long time to work out a deal, imagine the chaos, disunity and division and rancour that would of been caused with Scotland trying to break away from England and of course potentially could of lost Northern Island, just imagine the break up of the UK and how hard that would be to arrive the correct deal for trade and would Scotland revert to WTO rules? what would of been the terms of border movement between England and Scotland?? Would there have been a hard border between England and Scotland?? All of that potential chaos could of happened if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister because he be likely to have cut a deal with the SNP. 4. The last reason why Jeremy Corbyn could never be Prime Minister is because it would of been a betrayal to the most vulnerable minority's in this country. I wasn't prepared to repeat history and sellout my Jewish cousins who are a short walk down the road from where I am, for short term political gain. Thats what installing Jereemy Corbyn would mean, it means a betrayal on the Jewish Community, it would mean them as equal citizens in this country fearing genuinely not feeling as such not just in the Labour Party but by the Government itself while the enquiry at the time was ongoing on the alleged institutional Anti Semitism within the Labour Party, it would of been a major big mistake and error to consider Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister and it would definitely not would of been a Government of National Unity (were the prospect was to ever emerge) Those are my reasons why Jeremy Corbyn could never be Prime Minister in this country or the free world EVER." His popularity went up and down like most leaders. I don't know the figures myself but take your word for it. He did do better in the election against T. May though as she had a terrible campaign maybe that explains some of it. He is not someone I would vote for but to his credit it was easier to see what he stood for and wanted to do. With SKS it's been much more opaque. Anyway I don't think you need worry about him being PM at any point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t know why people get so het up over Corbyn. He’s not going to be anything of note politically again. He’s a footnote in failure and has too much baggage. Got four more years of the current party to get through yet won’t that be fun? " He won nothing as a somebody so the chances of him doing anything as a nobody are slim | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain?" He's a rabid little trotskyist That alone make him a 100% cunt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? He's a rabid little trotskyist That alone make him a 100% cunt." Completely agree! Good riddance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone " SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe." What does this mean to you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you?" Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for." I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today?" Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing." you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be?" Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. " Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. " The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. " What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone " It’s brilliant how Keir is refusing to let that Fool Corbyn stand as a Labour Mp at the next election... Oh the socialists are not going to be happy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again." But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialist?? Jeremy Corbyn acts more like a Communist" Very true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. " The voting system only annoys people when they are losing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. " Because we never see politicians compromise and negotiate policies under FPTP do we? Hello Tory-LibDem Coalition under David Cameron? Hello even the current Tory government who have to constantly deal with the Ultras/ERG faction within their own party? As long as political parties still try to strive to be broad churches, compromises will still happen that pleases nobody that didn't vote for them, and sometimes even displease people who voted for them. We need political parties to be broken up as much as we need FPTP to be changed to PR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The voting system only annoys people when they are losing " Quite so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tell right now that Im glad Jeremy Corbin was never (and can never be) made Prime Minister in this country and will break it down to 4 points 1. The first reason why he should never had been Prime Minister is because he was the least popular leader in the Opposition of the Government since records began in 1977. So for 46 years theres has never been a least popular leader in the Opposition than Jeremy Corbyn who was polling at -60 at the time which was lower than Michael Foot was polling. So if people think the real problem was Boris Johnson and his band of dogmatist at the time when he was in office, just imagine having Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Streetwho also happens to be a Brexiteer, a life long Brexiteer who's had a history of voting against further European integration again since the 1970s. So if people tried at the time to install the leasr popular leader in the Opposition in Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, it was a surest way of gurantee a backlash in England, a surest way of guranteeing a backlash as England fears the hard left and that backlash eventually lead to a Boris Johnson victory. 2. As Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer, it wouldnt of change anything regarding the Brexit Negotiations at the time. 3. For Jeremy Corbyn to have become Prime Minister, it was highly likely (giving his stance to the IRA and his stance on Scottish Independence) that he would've cut a deal with Nicola Sturgeon and asure her of support for another Scottish Referendum on Independence if the SNP had backed his bid to become Prime Minister at the time. So think about it in in this way, if thats the kind of horse trading that Corbyn engaged in to secure himself as Prime Minister by cutting a deal with the SNP that promised them another Referendum on Scotland if they were to have done so, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of wrangling over the deal the UK can get with the EU to Brexit was bad, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of playing Russian Roulette over our constitution over Brexit was bad, if you thought 3 and a half years (at the time) of division, of rancour, of confusion and disunity over Brexit was bad, well imagine if Scotland had its Referendum and see how bad that could of been especially if on a hypethetical scenario (and I'm not saying this would happen) but on a hyperthetical scenario had they won, what do you think Scexit would of look like?? Would do you think the deal between Scotland and England would have look like?? If you thought 3 years and half years (at the time) took a long time to work out a deal, imagine the chaos, disunity and division and rancour that would of been caused with Scotland trying to break away from England and of course potentially could of lost Northern Island, just imagine the break up of the UK and how hard that would be to arrive the correct deal for trade and would Scotland revert to WTO rules? what would of been the terms of border movement between England and Scotland?? Would there have been a hard border between England and Scotland?? All of that potential chaos could of happened if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister because he be likely to have cut a deal with the SNP. 4. The last reason why Jeremy Corbyn could never be Prime Minister is because it would of been a betrayal to the most vulnerable minority's in this country. I wasn't prepared to repeat history and sellout my Jewish cousins who are a short walk down the road from where I am, for short term political gain. Thats what installing Jereemy Corbyn would mean, it means a betrayal on the Jewish Community, it would mean them as equal citizens in this country fearing genuinely not feeling as such not just in the Labour Party but by the Government itself while the enquiry at the time was ongoing on the alleged institutional Anti Semitism within the Labour Party, it would of been a major big mistake and error to consider Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister and it would definitely not would of been a Government of National Unity (were the prospect was to ever emerge) Those are my reasons why Jeremy Corbyn could never be Prime Minister in this country or the free world EVER." And those are some of the reasons he led labour to the biggest defeat in over 70 years.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing " Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. Because we never see politicians compromise and negotiate policies under FPTP do we? Hello Tory-LibDem Coalition under David Cameron? Hello even the current Tory government who have to constantly deal with the Ultras/ERG faction within their own party? As long as political parties still try to strive to be broad churches, compromises will still happen that pleases nobody that didn't vote for them, and sometimes even displease people who voted for them. We need political parties to be broken up as much as we need FPTP to be changed to PR. " Like I said, getting a 80 seat majority with 29.4% of eligible voters support isn't what I would call a fair democratic system. The last 3 years have shown how true the old adage " power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely " is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's both imo. He also supports terrorism while hiding behind his mask of 'peace maker' Any one like him McDonnel and Abbott who supported the IRA when they were killing women and children are the lowest of the low as far as i'm concerned." Completely agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good." I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red." The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party, "but more voted for the tories than voted for any other single party, if all the others had of gone into a coaltion then could of kept the tories out but labour like the tories dont wana share power so tories had more votes than the other partys did on there own, how its always worked and will continue to work, tories and labour dont want pr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party, but more voted for the tories than voted for any other single party, if all the others had of gone into a coaltion then could of kept the tories out but labour like the tories dont wana share power so tories had more votes than the other partys did on there own, how its always worked and will continue to work, tories and labour dont want pr"This is a fact , the majority of people didn’t vote for the tories in 2019 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Jeremy Corbyn ran as a Independent MP, would any of you vote for him??? I wouldn't" Do you live in his constituency? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Jeremy Corbyn ran as a Independent MP, would any of you vote for him??? I wouldn't Do you live in his constituency? " No thank God | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Jeremy Corbyn ran as a Independent MP, would any of you vote for him??? I wouldn't Do you live in his constituency? No thank God" Then why are you so ‘worried’ about him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in" Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? He's both and when people say they are not the same they are being a bit disingenuous, it's just a way of hiding anti semitism. Sure you can criticise the Israeli government and rightly so but to deny Isreals right to exist is to be anti semitic. In my opinion " He dosnt deny Isreals right to exist . He sympathises with the Palestinians and they're cause as any one with ethic and integrity would. He was witch hunted by the advocates of the "holocaust industry" a term and a tactic highlighted by Norman finklestein a jew who lost several family members in the holocaust. Everyone should you tube " crocodile tears " By him . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates " Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just anti-Zionist? They are not the same. Or am I missing something? Can someone explain? He's both and when people say they are not the same they are being a bit disingenuous, it's just a way of hiding anti semitism. Sure you can criticise the Israeli government and rightly so but to deny Isreals right to exist is to be anti semitic. In my opinion He dosnt deny Isreals right to exist . He sympathises with the Palestinians and they're cause as any one with ethic and integrity would. He was witch hunted by the advocates of the "holocaust industry" a term and a tactic highlighted by Norman finklestein a jew who lost several family members in the holocaust. Everyone should you tube " crocodile tears " By him . " Agreed. Israel claims to not be a theocracy, but try getting elected to the Knesset if you are not Jewish. I say this as someone whose mother’s mother was a Jew (if you are Jewish you will understand why that is significant), the state of Israel has done some heinous things. Criticising the State of Israel is not anti-semitic. Does that mean the Palestinians are blameless? No! Is trying to force the discussion about the problems in that part of the World wrong? No! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that" You found a thread that was over a year old to comment on him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing you could accuse him of was being too nice ." And he didn’t eat a bacon sandwich! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that You found a thread that was over a year old to comment on him "ok but that doesnt mean anything. There's other threads about him which I haven't commented at all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that You found a thread that was over a year old to comment on him ok but that doesnt mean anything. There's other threads about him which I haven't commented at all"On the Ukraine thread you haven’t responded so I will ask again... ""Russians, Ukrainians (Soviets) are both the same to me"" Why say that? It would seem that is being deliberately provocative? If someone said Jamaicans, Barbadians are both the same to me, that too would be provocative. So what was the point of your post? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that You found a thread that was over a year old to comment on him ok but that doesnt mean anything. There's other threads about him which I haven't commented at all
On the Ukraine thread you haven’t responded so I will ask again...
"Russians, Ukrainians (Soviets) are both the same to me"
Why say that? It would seem that is being deliberately provocative?
If someone said Jamaicans, Barbadians are both the same to me, that too would be provocative.
So what was the point of your post?"I will respond on the thread not here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was asking a hypothetical question if you were living in the constituency that his based in Why? You seem a bit obsessed with the man . To answer your question though , I wouldn’t vote for him in my constituency as an independent because I prefer the Lib Dem or labour candidates Im not obsessed with him but lets agree to disagree on that You found a thread that was over a year old to comment on him ok but that doesnt mean anything. There's other threads about him which I haven't commented at all"From over a year ago? Anyway, it’s your choice | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red." So you want to exclude any voice that isn't red or blue. Am only quoting percentages on the actual election. Your reply the voting system only annoys people who lose by its logic would meant you thought I didnt vote Conservative | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party, "So they won by magic I presume | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. So you want to exclude any voice that isn't red or blue. Am only quoting percentages on the actual election. Your reply the voting system only annoys people who lose by its logic would meant you thought I didnt vote Conservative " The FPTP voting system was absolutely fine for the labour supporters / voters when labour actually won elections however since they cannot win now the socialists want to change how we vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume"If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact "The tories had the largest majority | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact "I see you're still throwing out the same out lines 
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts."Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers , "I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election"They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government "'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works"The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem "I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government. Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works"You might as well talk to a wall... Even with a 80+ seat majority the left voters feel they won | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
You might as well talk to a wall... Even with a 80+ seat majority the left voters feel they won"Can you read? At no point have I suggested that the tories didn’t win the last election, however, the majority of voters don’t want them in government, fact | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot"I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power "Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all. I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid"My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot"Exactly, the voting system was fine when Labour was winning elections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government "If you wanna get technical about it. You don't actually know that for sure. At best, the majority of those who voted didn't want the Tories | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government "The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories. How does that work for you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?"Coalition, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition, "Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk "No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
You might as well talk to a wall... Even with a 80+ seat majority the left voters feel they won
Can you read? At no point have I suggested that the tories didn’t win the last election, however, the majority of voters don’t want them in government, fact "Can I read? Just about thanks You keep having your petulant socialist tantrums it doesn’t change anything! However you want to spin it nearly 4 million more people voted conservative than labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years "So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing? When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide.... Like I said you are crazy talking today | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today "I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years "You would have need 4 parties in 2019 to get over 50% of votes cast. Labour 32.2% Libs 11.5% SNP 3.9% Green 2.7% That could never work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me "What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
"I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote "43.6 %  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People really need to stop counting those that don't vote. Why people assume that those who don't vote would agree with their choice of vote is beyond us? "Who is counting those that don’t vote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 % "11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People really need to stop counting those that don't vote. Why people assume that those who don't vote would agree with their choice of vote is beyond us? "Sadly because that’s the mindset they have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost "54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019, "56.4 % | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 % "Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on...... The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power."Labour didht deserve to have the majority of MPs The Lib Dem’s didn’t deserve to have the majority of MPs The tories didn’t deserve to have the majority of MPs The Lib Dem’s had 11.5 % of the vote and only 11 MPs out of 650 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. " No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no" As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it." Labour should pledge to change it. But it looks v like the Tories are going down hard in the next election. So I'm guessing the main Labour strategy is to rock the boat as little as possible while letting things take their course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it. Labour should pledge to change it. But it looks v like the Tories are going down hard in the next election. So I'm guessing the main Labour strategy is to rock the boat as little as possible while letting things take their course." Labour had their chance to change it, they opted not to take it. The Tories came to power and offered the electorate AV via referendum. The electorate chose to stick with what we have. It's pretty simple, the electorate were happy to have FPTP. It what we voted for, like or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it. Labour should pledge to change it. But it looks v like the Tories are going down hard in the next election. So I'm guessing the main Labour strategy is to rock the boat as little as possible while letting things take their course. Labour had their chance to change it, they opted not to take it. The Tories came to power and offered the electorate AV via referendum. The electorate chose to stick with what we have. It's pretty simple, the electorate were happy to have FPTP. It what we voted for, like or not." We should have another referendum on whether or not to have more referendums. At this point, why not? lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it." Realistically , the 2 main parties are hardly going to push for something that will give them a permanent migraine when in power. Can you imagine all of the minority outliers that will come together to disrupt every bill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it. Realistically , the 2 main parties are hardly going to push for something that will give them a permanent migraine when in power. Can you imagine all of the minority outliers that will come together to disrupt every bill. " I get why the two main parties would not be in favour as they are more concerned with winning than pledging to be more democratic. The system is wrong, right up until you win using the same system. Then all of a sudden there is nothing wrong with it, until they loose of course. It highlights what I was saying about deal with the system we have. Win or loose by it. Who got what percentage of what is irrelevant. If the system says a party has won then that's what counts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR is far more representative in my opinion but not heard either the Tories or Labour say they will introduce it. As these are the only 2 parties likely to firm a government and neither plan to introduce PR then my conclusion is that they are happy with the current system. Unless that changes then the current rules are all that matter. No appetite for a change in voting, the referendum of 2011 was a clear no As far as I understand the question of changing to PR has not been asked. I believe the 2011 referendum was on AV instead. As far as I'm concerned you have to go by the rules at the time. If the majority of those that voted did not vote Tory but the Tories won then so be it. That's the system. Clearly Labour are not that bothered about it either otherwise they would pledge to change it. Realistically , the 2 main parties are hardly going to push for something that will give them a permanent migraine when in power. Can you imagine all of the minority outliers that will come together to disrupt every bill. I get why the two main parties would not be in favour as they are more concerned with winning than pledging to be more democratic. The system is wrong, right up until you win using the same system. Then all of a sudden there is nothing wrong with it, until they loose of course. It highlights what I was saying about deal with the system we have. Win or loose by it. Who got what percentage of what is irrelevant. If the system says a party has won then that's what counts" A bunch of left leaning voters sadly cannot deal with the outcome of election results then constantly just quote pointless percentage numbers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power."Exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly "56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly
56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government "I know of a lady that I think you might get on with | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly
56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government
I know of a lady that I think you might get on with "Sounds good, is she on here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly
56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government
I know of a lady that I think you might get on with
Sounds good, is she on here "Oh yes, on another thread, really does not like tories! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly
56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government
I know of a lady that I think you might get on with
Sounds good, is she on here
Oh yes, on another thread, really does not like tories! "As I have said before, I don’t the hate tories, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has just raised his game again, shut the door, locked it and threw the key away. Well done to him, he really is starting to show some backbone SKS is another David Cameron in a red tìe. What does this mean to you? Someone trying to appease everyone and popular, with no true beliefs of his own. Or at least ones he's would die on his shield for. I guess he isn’t left enough for you? Is that where you would like a labour leader / party to be, more left of where they are today? Heres the thing, you automatically assumed i was left wing and pro Corbyn. How do you get that. For your information I have voted for both Labour and Conservative equally. I am self employed and have benefited from Tory policies in recent years. But this is the problem with debate nowadays, you have to either left or right wing. you came across as that, hence my question. I’m not standing in front of you, I can only go on what you type. Changing the question now I understand you a little better, wha do you want in a political leader? Where would you want their political philosophy to be? Ideally we would all want truth from our political leaders about their vision for the country. Labour should be representing the left of centre people and the Conservative party the right of centre. Ideally we should have a proportional representation system. This would mean less adversarial politics. More cooperation hopefully on policies that benefit most of the population. It would also allow both parties to be themselves and not try to be copies of each other. Do you think proportional representation would be a way forward? Personally I'm not so sure, everyone having a say tends to stop things actually happening, especially important changes. I feel we have an opportunity to make changes of government frequently enough to remove the fingers in the pie that could stall progression during a term. The current system leads to winner takes all. The opposition sometimes representing more of the popular vote unable to hold the incumbent to account. It allows the winner to do everything for their populace leaving the rest without a voice. The PR system allows all voters to have a voice. Many people don't vote for some of the smaller parties because they believe its wasted. It works in other countries, we have it Scotland. What I feel it does is give minorities who have no common connection the chance to derail the majority. The essence of a Bill watered down to keep X onside and then Y wants a say, eventually you have a diluted version of the vision. I think that leads to a place where it is easier to do nothing, because it is simply not worth the effort. We might not like 4 years of a party we didn't vote for making the decisions, but they were voted in by the majority and the majority can vote them back out again. But thats not true is it. Eighty-five countries in the world use a proportional electoral system to fill a nationally elected legislative body. Including countries such as Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Spain etc. Are you saying that all those country's get nothing done..? As for your argument about the majority voting in the government. In the 2019 election, Conservative party got 43.6% of the votes. But they have 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. How can that be democracy ? The turnout was 67.3%. So only 29.4% of the actual electorate gave the Conservatives their mandate. But they have a 80 seat majority. How many people who don't vote, do so because they feel disenfranchised under this winner takes all system. Who would return under a PR system..? Anyway I think where politicians are forced to compromise and negotiate policies would lead to better decisions for the overall country. Instead of everything the other side suggests is wrong and automatically dismissed. The voting system only annoys people when they are losing Your assuming I didn't vote Conservative. So you think a system that gives a party a blank cheque with the support of only 29.4% is good. I haven’t assumed anything... You can quote whatever percentages you like and use whatever reasons you want, however more people voted blue than red. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tory party,
So they won by magic I presume
If you don’t believe me look at the statistics. The majority of people who voted didn’t vote for the Tories, fact
I see you're still throwing out the same out lines
Of the people that could be arsed to vote, the Conservatives got the most votes, the most seats and the largest share of the vote.
You may hate the system but it's the way we vote and those are the facts.
Look it up, ‘the majority of people who voted in 2019 didn’t vote for the Tories’ this is a fact, you can’t argue with numbers ,
I didn't say 'majority'. As I said, you may not like it but in every way possible the Tories won the last election
They definitely won the last election, but the majority of the voters don’t want them in government
'The majority' doesn't matter. It's not how our voting system works
The majority ‘doesn’t matter’? There is the problem
I bet you never even thought about it whilst Labour were in Government.
Personally, I'd be happy to see PR but we don't have it so your whole argument is moot
I did, labour should have changed it when they were in power
Of course you did. The fact that Labour opted not to change it says it all.
I'll say it again, it's what we have, your argument is not valid
My argument is valid, the majority of voters don’t want this current government
The majority of voters didn't want one particular party in power other than the tories.
How does that work for you?
Coalition,
Not in a million years! You are suggesting putting all the other parties together that took a slice of the vote and forming a government
All the minorities, which they were at an individual level form a government, mate this is crazy talk
No, you don’t need all the parties, just 2 or 3 , it’s happened before, twice in the last 15 years
So you want to change the rules that a party that has the largest majority of votes, should be stopped from governing?
When one party can't form a majority, they from a coalition, not when one party has a landslide....
Like I said you are crazy talking today
I want PR, every vote counts, the government is chosen by the majority of voters, Thad doesn’t sound crazy to me
What you want does not relate to what we have, what has passed or even for wha tthe country voted for
I know, and I doubt we will ever have PR, it won’t change my opinion, we have a government with ab 80 seat ‘majority’ that only got 42.6 % of the vote
43.6 %
11.5% More than labour and 4 million more votes. Get over it you lost
54.4 % of the voters didn’t want the Tories, btw, i didn’t vote for labour in 2019,
56.4 %
Using your logic 67.8% of voters didn't want labour to win,88.5% didn't want LibDems, and so on......
The party with the most votes, the tories won the election and continued to hold the power.
Exactly
56.6 % of voters don’t want the Tories in government
I know of a lady that I think you might get on with
Sounds good, is she on here
Oh yes, on another thread, really does not like tories!
As I have said before, I don’t the hate tories, "'the' is in the wrong place so I suspect you can, in the future, protest that you have never said "I don't hate the tories"
I'll match you and say I've never said that I hate Labour. I voted Labour in 97 and 01
I do genuinely struggle with slippery Starmer and his volte-face re Corbyn and the hard left of his party,in a way I never did with Blair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman??" Depends who/what the alternative is. Right now he is the better bet IMO. Far from perfect but the better choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? Depends who/what the alternative is. Right now he is the better bet IMO. Far from perfect but the better choice." Same here. I don't think much of Starmer, but he's up against a group who have fucked this country over in so many ways for 13 years now. So he's 100% worth giving a chance to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? Depends who/what the alternative is. Right now he is the better bet IMO. Far from perfect but the better choice. Same here. I don't think much of Starmer, but he's up against a group who have fucked this country over in so many ways for 13 years now. So he's 100% worth giving a chance to." 100%? High praise indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jezza has bee fighting racism all his life and his family went out to confront the black shirts in the 30s Hopefully he will be back soon "Nonsense.. he failed and will not be back. The party is a mess now. All of the parties are a mess with no good option available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman?? Depends who/what the alternative is. Right now he is the better bet IMO. Far from perfect but the better choice. Same here. I don't think much of Starmer, but he's up against a group who have fucked this country over in so many ways for 13 years now. So he's 100% worth giving a chance to. 100%? High praise indeed. " High praise? Not at all. Just an indication that our government is terrible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not a massive Corbyn fan myself & like many found myself jumping on the media band waggon of hatred. But when I look back at his policy's all I can see is everything I want As time goes by you find out just how much slander against him was made up and how 90% of what he says has come true. THIS WAS ONE OF HIS POLICY'S Any company that gets a contract from the British government must pay tax into the uk economy No dodgy PPE contract or cash for friends with him, probably why the super rich went out their way to destroy him " But he condoned anti-semitism. Or did he..? https://youtu.be/DMIbbSsV6Xo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously could you really vote for Sir Kier Starmer who struggles to answer a simple question about what is a man and what is a woman??" There are many Labour Mp’s who seem to struggle describing what a woman is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
