BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:02 pm
Basically we have a situation where 0.14% of the UK population just elected the new PM...is this an end of an era or the beginning of an error
This is just mischief making ! The whole country voted to elect the party.
The leader is always chose by a minority of that party.
There is never a national vote for a PM.
Oh yes there is: that is what the term unelected PM suggests. It means not elected...by those that matter - being all of us
Last edited by BlackDiamond on Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Recession - Regardless of who is running the country, that happens
Rioting and social unrest - Bit vague, but happens all the time
Collapse of the NHS - Never, will always be propped up
Break up of the Union - who fucking cares
Climate catastrophe - Not sure Boris can take the hit on that one
BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:02 pm
Basically we have a situation where 0.14% of the UK population just elected the new PM...is this an end of an era or the beginning of an error
This is just mischief making ! The whole country voted to elect the party.
Not really. Around 13.6 million people voted Conservative and around 17.5 million didn't. The present election system in this country pretty much ALWAYS ensures we get a government which more people vote against then for. Even when Blair won his massive majorities more people voted against his party than voted for it.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
This is just mischief making ! The whole country voted to elect the party.
Not really. Around 13.6 million people voted Conservative and around 17.5 million didn't. The present election system in this country pretty much ALWAYS ensures we get a government which more people vote against then for. Even when Blair won his massive majorities more people voted against his party than voted for it.
Yep, this country chronically underrepresents vast numbers of people politically. From Lib dems to UKIP, geography is more important than voting numbers.
Still, the Great British public voted against PR, so that's that.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:02 pm
Basically we have a situation where 0.14% of the UK population just elected the new PM...is this an end of an era or the beginning of an error
This is just mischief making ! The whole country voted to elect the party.
The leader is always chose by a minority of that party.
There is never a national vote for a PM.
Not really Mike, Tessie didn't have a working majority, hence her bribing the DUP. Definitely NOT the whole country.
Not really. Around 13.6 million people voted Conservative and around 17.5 million didn't. The present election system in this country pretty much ALWAYS ensures we get a government which more people vote against then for. Even when Blair won his massive majorities more people voted against his party than voted for it.
Yep, this country chronically underrepresents vast numbers of people politically. From Lib dems to UKIP, geography is more important than voting numbers.
Still, the Great British public voted against PR, so that's that.
I think the vote could probably be very different if another one were to be held in today's political climate. We have an election for a government every 5 years and, as we've often seen, people change their minds. Often dramatically. Imo if we had come to our senses and fallen into line with virtually every other country in the free world UKIP would have had a significant voice in Parliament and we could probably have avoided this total nonsense which has been going on for ages. UKIP attracted nearly 1 vote in 8 (around 12.5%) but elected only one MP, whereas the SNP, for whom around half as many people supported returned over 50 MP's. Hardly fair is it ? And how anybody can describe it as democratic beats me.
But of course the two major parties will pussyfoot around the issue. Not because it is the best, or fairest, or most democratic voting system but because it guarantees one of them forming a government pretty much every time.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Yep, this country chronically underrepresents vast numbers of people politically. From Lib dems to UKIP, geography is more important than voting numbers.
Still, the Great British public voted against PR, so that's that.
I think the vote could probably be very different if another one were to be held in today's political climate. We have an election for a government every 5 years and, as we've often seen, people change their minds. Often dramatically. Imo if we had come to our senses and fallen into line with virtually every other country in the free world UKIP would have had a significant voice in Parliament and we could probably have avoided this total nonsense which has been going on for ages. UKIP attracted nearly 1 vote in 8 (around 12.5%) but elected only one MP, whereas the SNP, for whom around half as many people supported returned over 50 MP's. Hardly fair is it ? And how anybody can describe it as democratic beats me.
But of course the two major parties will pussyfoot around the issue. Not because it is the best, or fairest, or most democratic voting system but because it guarantees one of them forming a government pretty much every time.
Mate, Labour and Conservative don't want anything to do with PR, because it really would upset their duopoly on power.
I genuinely feel sorry for minority -- though that's often the wrong word -- parties who card huge percentages of national votes and all too often come away with little to no parliamentary influence.
I still believe a second house based on PR would be a fair solution, but instead we have the joke that is The Lords. You wouldn't believe it was 2019
...
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
I think the vote could probably be very different if another one were to be held in today's political climate. We have an election for a government every 5 years and, as we've often seen, people change their minds. Often dramatically. Imo if we had come to our senses and fallen into line with virtually every other country in the free world UKIP would have had a significant voice in Parliament and we could probably have avoided this total nonsense which has been going on for ages. UKIP attracted nearly 1 vote in 8 (around 12.5%) but elected only one MP, whereas the SNP, for whom around half as many people supported returned over 50 MP's. Hardly fair is it ? And how anybody can describe it as democratic beats me.
But of course the two major parties will pussyfoot around the issue. Not because it is the best, or fairest, or most democratic voting system but because it guarantees one of them forming a government pretty much every time.
Mate, Labour and Conservative don't want anything to do with PR, because it really would upset their duopoly on power.
I genuinely feel sorry for minority -- though that's often the wrong word -- parties who card huge percentages of national votes and all too often come away with little to no parliamentary influence.
I still believe a second house based on PR would be a fair solution, but instead we have the joke that is The Lords. You wouldn't believe it was 2019
...
Well, yes, you actually would. I used to travel to the States a lot on business before I retired and a guy who was, at the time the President of a large financial conglomerate and who is now involved in some way with the Trump administration, once described visiting the UK as "an experience like looking into a working museum".
Says it all really.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
This is just mischief making ! The whole country voted to elect the party.
The leader is always chose by a minority of that party.
There is never a national vote for a PM.
Oh yes there is: that is what the term unelected PM suggests. It means not elected...by those that matter - being all of us
Exactly when have we ever voted for a PM then ?
Always the party and its members vote for a leader, we (general public) vote for our local MP and then the party first past the post get into power and their leader is the PM.
