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 |  |
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " Don't think he said anything today, really.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. " What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. " Not a communist surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely?" Also true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely?" Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac" His lilac until he u-turns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. " The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Serious question: When is something a u-turn rather than a change of mind/policy as a result of being provided or made aware of further information? So, for example, I hope Starmer/Labour change their mind about VAT on Private School fees once they have realised their figures are wrong due to only being based on a single set of data." Just the way it's reported in the media. That's the only difference I can see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards " When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. " I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Serious question: When is something a u-turn rather than a change of mind/policy as a result of being provided or made aware of further information? So, for example, I hope Starmer/Labour change their mind about VAT on Private School fees once they have realised their figures are wrong due to only being based on a single set of data. Just the way it's reported in the media. That's the only difference I can see." ....and the right wing press only appear to focus on SKS's mind changes rather than Sunak's. I.e. Rwanda, taxing non-Doms, National Service. And Bunter's nickname was "the shopping trolley" as he was renown for going off in all directions changing his mind... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. " Labour have primed us for a couple of months now, and what I hear is that things will not get better, so why would I vote them in. Might as well vote tory which is.... blastphamy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often wonder about what people are thinking and why they get fixated on migrants I ask the question was it the migrants who smashed our economy did they force the banks to crash ? Clearly it was greedy bankers lending money they did not have - they got a huge bonus to boot This forced hardship & poverty and closed or reduced many of the services we need The economy is the biggest and most important issue of any government so why are the bankers not sent to Rwanda ? " On a one way journey. I remember when bankers were the scourge of town, now they are figured to be important. poppy cock I say. let them eat cheques. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me." Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often wonder about what people are thinking and why they get fixated on migrants I ask the question was it the migrants who smashed our economy did they force the banks to crash ? Clearly it was greedy bankers lending money they did not have - they got a huge bonus to boot This forced hardship & poverty and closed or reduced many of the services we need The economy is the biggest and most important issue of any government so why are the bankers not sent to Rwanda ? " Because they get constantly bombarded with anti-immigrant propaganda from every angle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. " I hear you I was going to mess up my ballot, but there are some independents running so I will see what is what first still 5 weeks left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. " He said he was a socialist. Flip flop joined the Labour Party Young Socialists in East Surrey when he was a teenager and helped found the radical magazine Socialist Alternatives after graduating from Leeds University. He went on to describe himself as a socialist during the 2020 leadership campaign, telling the Camden New Journal: “I am a socialist" I think it's fair to say he identifies as a socialist. Do you not think he is entitled to do this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. He said he was a socialist. " 
" Flip flop " We were just talking about that. Excellent example " joined the Labour Party Young Socialists in East Surrey when he was a teenager and helped found the radical magazine Socialist Alternatives after graduating from Leeds University. He went on to describe himself as a socialist during the 2020 leadership campaign, telling the Camden New Journal: “I am a socialist" " Excellent. Thank you. " I think it's fair to say he identifies as a socialist. " Even though he doesn't have any policies that advocate for the social ownership of the means of production. " Do you not think he is entitled to do this? " He's entitled to say what he wants, regardless how little relationship to reality it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. I hear you I was going to mess up my ballot, but there are some independents running so I will see what is what first still 5 weeks left." I'll consider green, independent, drawing a penis on the ballot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often wonder about what people are thinking and why they get fixated on migrants I ask the question was it the migrants who smashed our economy did they force the banks to crash ? Clearly it was greedy bankers lending money they did not have - they got a huge bonus to boot This forced hardship & poverty and closed or reduced many of the services we need The economy is the biggest and most important issue of any government so why are the bankers not sent to Rwanda ? " I think people are most concerned about "illegal" migration. I wouldn't make an enemy of you, with that long memory  although the bankers were absolutely allowed to play their game how they wanted it to play out, which was a huge mistake by governments around the world.
Fast forward 16 years and you will find financial services added £275billion to the UK GVA.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. I hear you I was going to mess up my ballot, but there are some independents running so I will see what is what first still 5 weeks left. I'll consider green, independent, drawing a penis on the ballot." I don't think the 3rd option will surprise many people here. I suspect a lot of ballot papers will be similarly spoiled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. I hear you I was going to mess up my ballot, but there are some independents running so I will see what is what first still 5 weeks left. I'll consider green, independent, drawing a penis on the ballot. I don't think the 3rd option will surprise many people here. I suspect a lot of ballot papers will be similarly spoiled. " Drawing a penis jibe was self-deprecating humour. Also intended to display contempt for the system of parliamentary democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. Labour have primed us for a couple of months now, and what I hear is that things will not get better, so why would I vote them in. Might as well vote tory which is.... blastphamy" Sometimes a change is just good for everyone. The Tories are a busted flush. They need some time out of Govt to regroup and rethink what they are. Also, one can hope, Labour may be able to at least remove some of the stench of suspected corruption and cronyism that has become the norm over the past 14 years. Saying all that, it leaves me in a quandary whatever party gets in as neither really represents me or what is best for me/mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. Labour have primed us for a couple of months now, and what I hear is that things will not get better, so why would I vote them in. Might as well vote tory which is.... blastphamy Sometimes a change is just good for everyone. The Tories are a busted flush. They need some time out of Govt to regroup and rethink what they are. Also, one can hope, Labour may be able to at least remove some of the stench of suspected corruption and cronyism that has become the norm over the past 14 years. Saying all that, it leaves me in a quandary whatever party gets in as neither really represents me or what is best for me/mine. " This is where Starmer is shooting himself in the foot. He needs to look like a labour leader so throws a couple of labour pledges into his middle ground promises, he then alienates a lot of people like yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. Labour have primed us for a couple of months now, and what I hear is that things will not get better, so why would I vote them in. Might as well vote tory which is.... blastphamy Sometimes a change is just good for everyone. The Tories are a busted flush. They need some time out of Govt to regroup and rethink what they are. Also, one can hope, Labour may be able to at least remove some of the stench of suspected corruption and cronyism that has become the norm over the past 14 years. Saying all that, it leaves me in a quandary whatever party gets in as neither really represents me or what is best for me/mine. This is where Starmer is shooting himself in the foot. He needs to look like a labour leader so throws a couple of labour pledges into his middle ground promises, he then alienates a lot of people like yourself. " I just wish we had a proper three (or more) party system (hmmm PR maybe) so that I could actually vote for a real centrist party rather than pseudo left or right pretending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. " they'd potentially get a say... But not sure if theyd get into government. You'd need one of the larger parties to get in bed with them. However we have seen that in other countries... However as a reason not to do this, I'm torn. Clearly o don't want extreme parties close to power. However I also think that everyone should have a voice. FPTP silences the majority (boring the majority are a very broad church). Imo if we have something causing extremen policitcs to become more mainstream we need to help sniff it out not snuff it out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's totally vacuous most of the time, but today he did admit to being a socialist after a faltering few seconds, whist he pondered whether that might lose a few Tory switchers. What did he say? Starmer is not a socialist by any measure. Not a communist surely? Starmer isn’t Red he is Lilac His lilac until he u-turns. The Starmer u-turn trope is really interesting. He changed his position on a few things (which is generally sensible as new information comes to light). And the media stamped "Captain U-Turn" on him and what's what everyone goes with. To be clear, I won't be voting for him. But it's not because of this catchphrase. I do not hate labour, I hate that offer no choice, the choices they offered they have u turned on "Jeremy Corbin is my friend", couple of years later "I did not say that" for example. I did like corbin I would of voted for him, but his stance on Israel killed him off. Bankers bonuses u turn Green agenda u turn People will ask what's next. Have you decided what way you will go (without any word from me), I think you know I am going independent but if you do not wish to say that's cool with me. Trillion % not Reform Billion % not Tories 100 % not Labour I'll see what's left, or I may abstain. I hear you I was going to mess up my ballot, but there are some independents running so I will see what is what first still 5 weeks left. I'll consider green, independent, drawing a penis on the ballot." ha any mark will do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. " Only as part of a coalition. The vast majority of the British public straddle the middle ground. But if a million people vote for/want a fascist party and another million want a communist party then shouldn’t they get representation? I say yes as that is true representative democracy regardless of whether I find their views abhorrent or at least distasteful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. " Pure PR would…. But not one country in the world runs elections based on pure PR For example…. Germany runs a version on PR, but based regionally.. and has a minimum percentage value that has to be reached to get a seat(I think it’s 10%) The closest acceptable version the uk would use would be the Scottish/ northern Irish version where they have FPTP constituencies, and then lump regions (like the old European elections) to fill out the rest of the seats… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently, there are six main parties. Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP Greens Reform " But the reality in England is only Labour or Conservative will secure enough votes using FPTP to get into govt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tradgically - the labour government will be hands bound due the the borrowing levels - plus growth (GDP) is very poor - with free trade agreements in the EU Markets as before, to trade is going to be do difficult for labour to show any great growth due to the inherited failures of this government It will be sad but the card they have been left with play are not arcana cards When asked about funding for public services on question time a couple months back, Emily Thornberry who is no lightweight said labour would have to borrow. Labour have primed us for a couple of months now, and what I hear is that things will not get better, so why would I vote them in. Might as well vote tory which is.... blastphamy Sometimes a change is just good for everyone. The Tories are a busted flush. They need some time out of Govt to regroup and rethink what they are. Also, one can hope, Labour may be able to at least remove some of the stench of suspected corruption and cronyism that has become the norm over the past 14 years. Saying all that, it leaves me in a quandary whatever party gets in as neither really represents me or what is best for me/mine. " Even though I have voted labour in the past I remember when Blair got in and days or a few weeks later he was on TV explaining why he had dropped the smoking ban for F1, after Bernie had had a back door visit to no 10, maybe a donation was involved But the tories took things to 3.o I agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently, there are six main parties. Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP Greens Reform But the reality in England is only Labour or Conservative will secure enough votes using FPTP to get into govt." I hope some independents get in just to make things not all about them I hope. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. Only as part of a coalition. The vast majority of the British public straddle the middle ground. But if a million people vote for/want a fascist party and another million want a communist party then shouldn’t they get representation? I say yes as that is true representative democracy regardless of whether I find their views abhorrent or at least distasteful. " the smaller groups using your examples, fascist or communists would influence by selling their support for changes they want that the vast majority wouldn't want. PR is giving everyone a voice and getting nothing done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. they'd potentially get a say... But not sure if theyd get into government. You'd need one of the larger parties to get in bed with them. However we have seen that in other countries... However as a reason not to do this, I'm torn. Clearly o don't want extreme parties close to power. However I also think that everyone should have a voice. FPTP silences the majority (boring the majority are a very broad church). Imo if we have something causing extremen policitcs to become more mainstream we need to help sniff it out not snuff it out. " I think there is an additional argument. Because we currently have in effect a two party system it has seen Labour and Conservative become too broad a “church” allowing more extreme views to hold sway within the party diluting their original purpose and core ideology. In effect we already have coalition govt almost every time but they all wear either a red or blue rosette. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. Only as part of a coalition. The vast majority of the British public straddle the middle ground. But if a million people vote for/want a fascist party and another million want a communist party then shouldn’t they get representation? I say yes as that is true representative democracy regardless of whether I find their views abhorrent or at least distasteful. the smaller groups using your examples, fascist or communists would influence by selling their support for changes they want that the vast majority wouldn't want. PR is giving everyone a voice and getting nothing done " See my next point. It already happens within the two main parties but not as open and publicly as PR would drive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Coalition government or not - do we really want to sanction extreme voices left or right inside our version of democracy? Oddly enough. Democracy actually doesn't mean that everybody should have a say. " I say better out in the open rather than behind closed doors with invisible horse trading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently, there are six main parties. Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP Greens Reform " Excluding the Welsh and Northern Irish MPs but including Scottish MPs. Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently, there are six main parties. Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP Greens Reform Excluding the Welsh and Northern Irish MPs but including Scottish MPs. Why?" Ask the pollsters/political pundits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever." I could see this is how it would end up, individuals setting up parties, ending in a real mess. I hear a lot of left wing progressives call for PR, but they do have a tendency to cancel what the don't like on sight.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. I could see this is how it would end up, individuals setting up parties, ending in a real mess. I hear a lot of left wing progressives call for PR, but they do have a tendency to cancel what the don't like on sight. "Absolutely.
And worth repeating:
***Oddly enough. Democracy actually doesn't mean that everybody should have a say.*** | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. I could see this is how it would end up, individuals setting up parties, ending in a real mess. I hear a lot of left wing progressives call for PR, but they do have a tendency to cancel what the don't like on sight.
Absolutely.
And worth repeating:
***Oddly enough. Democracy actually doesn't mean that everybody should have a say.*** "democracy has many forms. How many people would need to be "anti abolition" for them to be able to have a say ? Under FPTP there could be parties with tow such agendas, split the vote, and the pro abortion party gets in with a minority. Imo UKIP showed how much the current approach can create skewed outcomes. They had to influence the agenda by means other than direct representation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PR would allow more extreme parties to get in government. " It would certainly give them MP's and more say in matters but unless part of a coalition unlikely to be in government. Something needs to change as I think it was the greens and UKIP that got millions of votes at one election but only one or 2 MP's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever." And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible! And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible! "
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
" And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading. " I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament. Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible!
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading.
I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament.
Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda.
"Yep and people always assume that the more extreme party get all the benefits but they have to horse trade too and rarely, if ever, get to overturn major policy decisions being pushed by the major party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a thought exercise it's fun to chat about the million myriad ways, but as a reality PR will never happen in the UK ever. It's simply not in the interests of Labour or Conservatives or the SNP for that matter. Nor is it in the interests of Democracy. "I agree on your first point. FPTP totally suits the two main parties but it is a flawed and outdated form. Disagree with your second point funnily enough! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible!
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading.
I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament.
Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda.
Yep and people always assume that the more extreme party get all the benefits but they have to horse trade too and rarely, if ever, get to overturn major policy decisions being pushed by the major party."But you could get a situation where the balance of power hinged on support of 'extreme' parties who can then extract unreasonable terms. We saw this with the DUP when they extracted £1 bil. to support the Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible!
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading.
I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament.
Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda.
Yep and people always assume that the more extreme party get all the benefits but they have to horse trade too and rarely, if ever, get to overturn major policy decisions being pushed by the major party.
But you could get a situation where the balance of power hinged on support of 'extreme' parties who can then extract unreasonable terms. We saw this with the DUP when they extracted £1 bil. to support the Tories."Or the students that had their promise ripped away for tution fees to be dropped. (Clegg and yes I know it was a coalition) The DUP holding the conservatives to ransom. On and on it goes - stalled everything - watered down everything. Everything costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible!
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading.
I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament.
Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda.
Yep and people always assume that the more extreme party get all the benefits but they have to horse trade too and rarely, if ever, get to overturn major policy decisions being pushed by the major party.
But you could get a situation where the balance of power hinged on support of 'extreme' parties who can then extract unreasonable terms. We saw this with the DUP when they extracted £1 bil. to support the Tories."using an example under FPTP probably doesn't help the argument for FPTP! Assuming there's a range of parties under PR, I'd have expected a coalition to involve parties with more common goals. Of course, we don't know that would happen. But we now know what happens under FPTP ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay so let's go with the . . . Euthanasia Party Anti-protestant Anti-Muslim anti-religious party Anti Persons of colour party Anti Women in Power Party Anti Abortion Party Anti Democracy Party Anti (fill this space party) Nope, that's never happening - ever. And if sufficient numbers of voters agreed they might get a seat/MP but I’d actually say that is pretty unlikely as the majority of people in Britain are relatively sensible!
Reform have 1 MP. Although he was voted in as a member of Reform-Lite.
And as I have already said, pressure groups and interest groups already exist in the major parties anyway and often exert undue influence over what might be more mainstream policy making, but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors, horse trading.
I've lived in a country that had a form of PR. What happened was that the more out-there parties tempered their rhetoric when they took their seats in parliament.
Likely what would happen if greens got some seats they would push for lesser environmental reforms. Reform wouldn't push as hard on their anti-science agenda or their teachers can't be aware of social injustice especially racism, agenda.
Yep and people always assume that the more extreme party get all the benefits but they have to horse trade too and rarely, if ever, get to overturn major policy decisions being pushed by the major party.
But you could get a situation where the balance of power hinged on support of 'extreme' parties who can then extract unreasonable terms. We saw this with the DUP when they extracted £1 bil. to support the Tories.using an example under FPTP probably doesn't help the argument for FPTP!
Assuming there's a range of parties under PR, I'd have expected a coalition to involve parties with more common goals. Of course, we don't know that would happen. But we now know what happens under FPTP ! " how true!
And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say!" Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters" I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?"and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol. But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else. But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference. Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
"Patronising much! 
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
"You always make me smile  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile "Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look. Take it nothing further to add re PR? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?"Patronising? In your opinion. PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
"Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough."No it isn't. And I did speak about some pros and cons. Read back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why some of you guys want to vote for Starmer I will never know" And yet you keep telling us you are voting for reform…… So… other than immigration, what grabbed you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And more oddly (but perhaps not) Reform are the 3rd party by voting intention (YouGov Survey Today)" Terrifying more than odd. That we now have this many people who are scared of foreigners, think science isn't real and want teachers to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And more oddly (but perhaps not) Reform are the 3rd party by voting intention (YouGov Survey Today)" They will be seen as a protest vote… once people actually delve into policy.. for example they don’t believe in climate change… people would be horrified | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back."Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
Anyway, I have not seen sufficiently robust argument against PR to change my mind it would be better than FPTP. Next topic…? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
"How patronising. But still. You make me smile. lots. X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
How patronising.
But still. You make me smile. lots. X"Deliberately. Good that you recognise it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
How patronising.
But still. You make me smile. lots. X
Deliberately. Good that you recognise it "Ooooooo.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
How patronising.
But still. You make me smile. lots. X
Deliberately. Good that you recognise it
Ooooooo. "Keep smiling  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
How patronising.
But still. You make me smile. lots. X
Deliberately. Good that you recognise it
Ooooooo.
Keep smiling "Laughing now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And posters still ignoring the point on broad church and behind closed door horse trading with more extreme elements and pressure groups within the mainstream parties. Get it out in the open I say! Nope. I think you will find that that has already been mentioned by other posters I must be going blind, or senile, or both but where has that been properly addressed?
and now you have added 'properly addressed' lol.
But you do have to remember that just because your point is a point to you, doesn't mean it's a point to anyone else.
But if you read back you'll see that people do mention the trading that goes on, if not directly, then by obvious inference.
Perhaps if you specifically want a point talked about, you could make that point a question rather than a statement? Whether people answer it is entirely another matter.
Patronising much!
Ok how about “explicitly addressed” because inference can be subjective and I’m not burning calories trying to eek out the possibility that someone may have tangentially addressed a point!
I also don’t have to remember anything thanks! The discussion is about the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP and the general consensus amongst those posting here against PR is that it results in coalitions where there are trade offs. Well I hate to break it to you AGAIN, but both major parties are virtual coalitions already (broad church) due to internal pressure/interest groups with views that are not fully aligned with the core purpose/policy of the party and they exert influence on policy making already but do so from the shadows, behind closed doors.
Personally I would prefer the horse trading to be happening more publicly.
You always make me smile
Good but do try harder to be less patronising. It isn’t a good look.
Take it nothing further to add re PR?
Patronising? In your opinion.
PR? It will never happen in the UK. I think I have said that about 4 times now.
Saying to someone “but you have to remember…” is blatantly patronising
Ah so your only point is it won’t happen rather than pros and cons. Fair enough.
No it isn't.
And I did speak about some pros and cons.
Read back.
Oh yes it is
The only thing that matters is the words on the page not the voice in your head when you were writing them (as only you can hear your voices).
How patronising.
But still. You make me smile. lots. X
Deliberately. Good that you recognise it
Ooooooo.
Keep smiling
Laughing now. "Always look on the bright side of life hey? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely. Be that annoyingly happy person that other people get really annoyed at. I remember a total stranger saying to me, 'Oh Gawwwd! The plane is going to be late!' I replied: 'But that means we get to spend more time together!' We have been friends for 12 years. "A good approach to life. Positive energy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely. Be that annoyingly happy person that other people get really annoyed at. I remember a total stranger saying to me, 'Oh Gawwwd! The plane is going to be late!' I replied: 'But that means we get to spend more time together!' We have been friends for 12 years.
A good approach to life. Positive energy."totally out of place here. Bah political humbug.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A good approach to life. Positive energy.totally out of place here. Bah political humbug. "Lmao. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
