Bercow defects to Labour - Did not see that coming

I beg to differ, but our conclusions are in agreement (y)
As I said, you don’t like the process, the system.
Parties exist that are dead against it, but don’t win anything.
Some of you are so anti everything that doesn’t fit your precise view of how things “should be”.
You just go on and on and on.
Even when people agree with points made, they are not quite right, they have to be corrected of course. They have to be “educated”.
 
As I said, you don’t like the process, the system.
Parties exist that are dead against it, but don’t win anything.
Some of you are so anti everything that doesn’t fit your precise view of how things “should be”.
You just go on and on and on.
Even when people agree with points made, they are not quite right, they have to be corrected of course. They have to be “educated”.

The don’t win anything because they can’t. Because of the system. Because it isn’t democratic. Of course it’s the system. That’s the entire point.

The generalisation you make is lazy and inaccurate. Nobody is ‘anti-everything’. That’s a crock.
 
As I said, you don’t like the process, the system.
Parties exist that are dead against it, but don’t win anything.
Some of you are so anti everything that doesn’t fit your precise view of how things “should be”.
You just go on and on and on.
Even when people agree with points made, they are not quite right, they have to be corrected of course. They have to be “educated”.
Hang on young man:

I differed on your definition, but our conclusions were the same. [That means I agreed with you].(y)

Thats all I commented on.

I couldnt care less about ranting, especially when [you] "...just go on and on and on" (?!).

We`l natter later. Im off for a P and to make a cup of T. (y)
 
As I said, you don’t like the process, the system.
Parties exist that are dead against it, but don’t win anything.
Some of you are so anti everything that doesn’t fit your precise view of how things “should be”.
You just go on and on and on.
Even when people agree with points made, they are not quite right, they have to be corrected of course. They have to be “educated”.
I'm for you. I believe your vote should count. I can't believe you don't think mine should.
 
I'm for you. I believe your vote should count. I can't believe you don't think mine should.
Those who oppose FPTP can’t even agree on and align on an alternative. They consume themselves arguing about the perfect solution.
Roofie by the way, for clarity I wasn’t aiming my comments at you remotely in particular.
 
Those who oppose FPTP can’t even agree on and align on an alternative. They consume themselves arguing about the perfect solution.
Roofie by the way, for clarity I wasn’t aiming my comments at you remotely in particular.
They can agree and align.
 
The vote was heard and counted, unfortunately for them millions more voted against them. Funny how this system isn't criticised and the result invalid when the " right" party wins.
 
Those who oppose FPTP can’t even agree on and align on an alternative. They consume themselves arguing about the perfect solution.
Roofie by the way, for clarity I wasn’t aiming my comments at you remotely in particular.
Cheers.
I couldnt understand - because Ive not really bothered today about Bercow.
Not to worry.
(y)
 
Why should votes be against? Votes should be for. Every vote should count. Banana republics are more democratic than we are.
If you vote for a party, you are against the others, ispo facto.
It's like At the start of a season everyone knows the rules regarding playoffs, then when a team finishes third with a big points margin over fourth place complaining they should be promoted. Dems the rules boys.😎
 
Those who oppose FPTP can’t even agree on and align on an alternative. They consume themselves arguing about the perfect solution.
Roofie by the way, for clarity I wasn’t aiming my comments at you remotely in particular.

Simply not true. Not that it's a relevant point anyway. The question being raised is whether FPTP is democratic, which by any objective standard it isn't and nobody has put any counter argument forward.

The vote was heard and counted, unfortunately for them millions more voted against them. Funny how this system isn't criticised and the result invalid when the " right" party wins.

Again not true. Most people in favour of PR remain in favour of it irrespective of who wins. Again it's a lazy and inaccurate argument without any substance.

If you vote for a party, you are against the others, ispo facto.
It's like At the start of a season everyone knows the rules regarding playoffs, then when a team finishes third with a big points margin over fourth place complaining they should be promoted. Dems the rules boys.😎

It's not at all like that. In fact, that's the exact point. We are saying, before a ball has been kicked, that the system is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally anti-democratic. Nobody is arguing that 'dems not the rules', we are saying that the rules are undemocratic.

Why should votes be against? Votes should be for. Every vote should count. Banana republics are more democratic than we are.

This is the point. There is a reason that we remain pretty much the only country that adopts this archaic and undemocratic system of election. I challenge anyone to put an argument forward that winning 43.6% of the total ought to give rise to unassailable, unchallengeable and absolute power for 4 years.
 
During Summer of 2019 the ERG sect of the Tories tried to force through a No Deal Brexit, Bercow stood up for Parliament and with the group of mostly Labour MP's who tried to block such a damaging outcome. MP's are supposed to put the best interests of the country first, above their constituents and party. Any MP who believed Brexit to be against the best interests of the UK was fully justified in opposing it by parliamentary process

The right-wing tabloids span this as Labour trying to defeat the will of the people and many people were convinced and still believe that. They are wrong and don't understand how our representative democracy works.

The Tories are never guilty of over estimating the intelligence of the electorate and give them nice 3 word slogans to get behind
 
If you vote for a party, you are against the others, ispo facto.
It's like At the start of a season everyone knows the rules regarding playoffs, then when a team finishes third with a big points margin over fourth place complaining they should be promoted. Dems the rules boys.😎

Depends who sets and controls the settings of those rules. The word demos is a clue to who should control them. But way below the apex, there are positions by either design or luck, a quick and truly ruthless person can manipulate a ramshackle system to their advantage. Heller recognised that ex PFC Wintergreen, while at once fighting Milo Minderbender for control of the black market, although that only stretched to selling Zippo lighters. His true purpose was through various acts of criminal skulduggery was to oversee the direction, and ultimately control the direction of the war. From his desk, as a lowly clerk, in the mail room. A bit like Cummings on acid.
There are far to many holes in current constitutional arrangement that allow far to much power and unchecked influence to would be…exPFC Wintergreens.
 
Depends who sets and controls the settings of those rules. The word demos is a clue to who should control them. But way below the apex, there are positions by either design or luck, a quick and truly ruthless person can manipulate a ramshackle system to their advantage. Heller recognised that ex PFC Wintergreen, while at once fighting Milo Minderbender for control of the black market, although that only stretched to selling Zippo lighters. His true purpose was through various acts of criminal skulduggery was to oversee the direction, and ultimately control the direction of the war. From his desk, as a lowly clerk, in the mail room. A bit like Cummings on acid.
There are far to many holes in current constitutional arrangement that allow far to much power and unchecked influence to would be…exPFC Wintergreens.
You've been on wiki ,cheeky man not attributing sources..😎
 
Not for PR. Tories mocked the complexity of the AV and, for most people, it would be difficult to get their heads round what they were voting for.
Are you really saying that people are too stupid to be entitled to vote and that it should only be for really really clever people like you, Adi and Boromart?
Or unless of course they vote how you want?

There are disadvantages with every form of voting system, if you look for them.
There are imperfections with FPTP, but it is clear and simple, is understood and does give a result that more people voted FOR than anything else.
 
Are you really saying that people are too stupid to be entitled to vote and that it should only be for really really clever people like you, Adi and Boromart?
Or unless of course they vote how you want?

There are disadvantages with every form of voting system, if you look for them.
There are imperfections with FPTP, but it is clear and simple, is understood and does give a result that more people voted FOR than anything else.
and does give a result that more people voted FOR than anything else.
Not true
 
Back
Top