Â
FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Future of British Politics đŹđ§
The Future of British Politics đŹđ§
Jump to: Newest in thread
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 Â
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hopefully more seperatism. Westminster only serves one country. The greens back indy. Nothing about Westminster will ever be good. From d*unk votes from ring bells in pubs nearby, to members not turning up daily. It's just an extension of royal courts of the past. Unfit for humanity" Increased separatism, whilst understandable for wales, Scotland and NI, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. We should be increasing links with others, not cutting them | |||
"With any luck? A hung parliament leading to PR as demanded by the greens and LDâs. FPTP is not fit for purpose." Reform also support PR, if approved by a referendum. | |||
"With any luck? A hung parliament leading to PR as demanded by the greens and LDâs. FPTP is not fit for purpose. Reform also support PR, if approved by a referendum." Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. | |||
| |||
"Next up 07 May Around 5,000 seats across 136 local councils will be up for grabs. Potentially millions of voters turning out, and many enthused by the end of two party politics. " Can Starmer really survive a wipe out in May ? đź | |||
| |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way. | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way." I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it? | |||
"After the Gorton and Denton result, what can we predict for the future of British politics? A new two party system with Greens and Reform replacing Labour and Conservatives? Increased sectarian voting and division ? More American style voter fraud ?" Is this part 3âŠ.. throwing out all the reforms slop excuses and talking points I seeâŠ.hmmmm Okay⊠a few things Labour moving right whilst the left basically left you is the worst outcome In places where reform will never win⊠London, Scotland, university towns, for example⊠they are now going to have to fight off the greens , the SNP, and the Lib Demâs (your party is such a bad move⊠but Corbyn Saldana want the power.. should just fold into the greens) The only wise thing out of this is that if burnham had run and won the seat⊠they would have lost the mayoral election in greater Manchester to the greens⊠and that would have been bigger! ReformâŠ. They took the conservative vote⊠but basically nothing else! ⊠talked a big game .. and in a constituency where the left vote was split and 50,000 people voted⊠reform still only beat Labour by 500! And now we get the trump style cryingâŠ..waaaaah!!! | |||
"With any luck? A hung parliament leading to PR as demanded by the greens and LDâs. FPTP is not fit for purpose. Reform also support PR, if approved by a referendum. Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. " Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? We either believe in democracy or we donât. To hand pick who can have a say and who canât is not democracy. It is the job of politicians to put forward an argument and/or a policy and let people decide. I think if referendums could be done more cheaply, but still reliably, safely and informatively, there should be one every year on the big issue of the day. The trouble is, nobody agrees on what the question should be or how itâs worded, as there is always a slight bias towards saying no, regardless of the question. If you actually think MPs voted how they are told to by their party leader is less âidiots following the blindâ than the general public voting with their gut with minimal information, they were totally screwed | |||
"Next up 07 May Around 5,000 seats across 136 local councils will be up for grabs. Potentially millions of voters turning out, and many enthused by the end of two party politics. Can Starmer really survive a wipe out in May ? đź" If he goes early he may be forgiven for 14 U turns, increased small boats and a big fail on housing delivery which is at 12 year low. | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? " Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? " So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? " I didnât say people shouldnât have a say, did I? I said referendums are terrible, because youâre inviting people to vote without giving them the requirement of learning about said subject, nor granting them the time or means to do so. Also who gets a vote (which unlike elections are not reversable?) 16+? 18+? Should someone 75 years old have equal say go a teenager on a one-off vote? | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? I didnât say people shouldnât have a say, did I? I said referendums are terrible, because youâre inviting people to vote without giving them the requirement of learning about said subject, nor granting them the time or means to do so. Also who gets a vote (which unlike elections are not reversable?) 16+? 18+? Should someone 75 years old have equal say go a teenager on a one-off vote? " All the problems you say are applicable even for general elections. | |||
| |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? I didnât say people shouldnât have a say, did I? I said referendums are terrible, because youâre inviting people to vote without giving them the requirement of learning about said subject, nor granting them the time or means to do so. Also who gets a vote (which unlike elections are not reversable?) 16+? 18+? Should someone 75 years old have equal say go a teenager on a one-off vote? All the problems you say are applicable even for general elections." Which come around every 4-5 years, unlike single issue referendums | |||
| |||
| |||
"After the Gorton and Denton result, what can we predict for the future of British politics? A new two party system with Greens and Reform replacing Labour and Conservatives? Increased sectarian voting and division ? More American style voter fraud ? Is this part 3âŠ.. throwing out all the reforms slop excuses and talking points I seeâŠ.hmmmm Okay⊠a few things Labour moving right whilst the left basically left you is the worst outcome In places where reform will never win⊠London, Scotland, university towns, for example⊠they are now going to have to fight off the greens , the SNP, and the Lib Demâs (your party is such a bad move⊠but Corbyn Saldana want the power.. should just fold into the greens) The only wise thing out of this is that if burnham had run and won the seat⊠they would have lost the mayoral election in greater Manchester to the greens⊠and that would have been bigger! ReformâŠ. They took the conservative vote⊠but basically nothing else! ⊠talked a big game .. and in a constituency where the left vote was split and 50,000 people voted⊠reform still only beat Labour by 500! And now we get the trump style cryingâŠ..waaaaah!!!" Certainly an 'interesting' analysis, as long as you ignore the 10% swing from the left and the calls from Labour and the Greens for suspicious voting to be investigated - who knew they were Trump supporters! đ | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? I didnât say people shouldnât have a say, did I? I said referendums are terrible, because youâre inviting people to vote without giving them the requirement of learning about said subject, nor granting them the time or means to do so. Also who gets a vote (which unlike elections are not reversable?) 16+? 18+? Should someone 75 years old have equal say go a teenager on a one-off vote? All the problems you say are applicable even for general elections. Which come around every 4-5 years, unlike single issue referendums" Still... They are choosing leaders who are going to govern the country for 5 years and are contesting based on important issues which they talk about in the manifesto. If you believe people are too stupid for referendum, why do you think they are intelligent enough for general elections? You might as well say that you are against democracy. | |||
"The left wing vote overall fell by 10% in one of the most left wing areas in the country. So whilst the Greens are rightly celebrating a win, the overall vote for their type of ideology fell massively. I believe the constituency also has a large population of Asian people who were probably never going to vote reform. Instead voted for a white, blonde person whose party is lead by a gay man. Rather than the party who is claims to love Islam. Thereâs a lot to read into this, but pretty much everyone can claim some positives if they dig deep enough, everyone except Starmer. Has this seat ever not been Labour since the party came to be? " I would love to see what the green party does in this area during the Pride month. Should be an entertaining watch  | |||
" Donât let the people have a say, half of them are idiots? Is that your thinking? Or that people wonât agree with you? Fabs is full of people putting words into others mouths, isnât it? So perhaps youâd like to explain why people shouldnât have a say? I didnât say people shouldnât have a say, did I? I said referendums are terrible, because youâre inviting people to vote without giving them the requirement of learning about said subject, nor granting them the time or means to do so. Also who gets a vote (which unlike elections are not reversable?) 16+? 18+? Should someone 75 years old have equal say go a teenager on a one-off vote? All the problems you say are applicable even for general elections. Which come around every 4-5 years, unlike single issue referendums Still... They are choosing leaders who are going to govern the country for 5 years and are contesting based on important issues which they talk about in the manifesto. If you believe people are too stupid for referendum, why do you think they are intelligent enough for general elections? You might as well say that you are against democracy." I didnât say stupid, I said were not given time or means to learn about a subject. You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you? Do you know everything about everything? I presume you work for a living and donât wish to spend all your free time reading up on the minutia of every possible referendum topic? | |||
| |||
"Referendums would be more palatable if we did them like (I believe) Switzerland who have multiple referenda on the same topic over a period of time, as confirmatory votes. Thatâs a sensible proposal" The Swiss system works well, and lets the people have their say. They hold referendums every 3 months, with several questions being asked. You can show your opinion on the ones you care about, and ignore the others. The last time I was there the big issue was question 17 - should they allow hot sausages to be sold on a Sunday. | |||
"Referendums would be more palatable if we did them like (I believe) Switzerland who have multiple referenda on the same topic over a period of time, as confirmatory votes. Thatâs a sensible proposal The Swiss system works well, and lets the people have their say. They hold referendums every 3 months, with several questions being asked. You can show your opinion on the ones you care about, and ignore the others. The last time I was there the big issue was question 17 - should they allow hot sausages to be sold on a Sunday." What sort of sausages? | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." "Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way." "I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it?" Isn't it? Explain why you think it's a bad idea to be "at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic". What bad outcome do you see arising from that? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The left wing vote overall fell by 10% in one of the most left wing areas in the country. So whilst the Greens are rightly celebrating a win, the overall vote for their type of ideology fell massively. I believe the constituency also has a large population of Asian people who were probably never going to vote reform. Instead voted for a white, blonde person whose party is lead by a gay man. Rather than the party who is claims to love Islam. Thereâs a lot to read into this, but pretty much everyone can claim some positives if they dig deep enough, everyone except Starmer. Has this seat ever not been Labour since the party came to be? I would love to see what the green party does in this area during the Pride month. Should be an entertaining watch "I believe they are going to twin with the Gaza Pride celebration. | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way. I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it? Isn't it? Explain why you think it's a bad idea to be "at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic". What bad outcome do you see arising from that?" believe those best placed to make decisions on topics are those with personal specific expertise or access to suchlike (via third parties perhaps) and time to analyse it - Iâm sure youâd agree, no? And you claimed that Iâd said I want to get rid of democracy, did you not? Can you explain exactly where I said that? | |||
" I didnât say stupid, I said were not given time or means to learn about a subject. You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you? Do you know everything about everything? I presume you work for a living and donât wish to spend all your free time reading up on the minutia of every possible referendum topic? " How long do you think is a reasonable time? It's not like we need a referendum every other day. Doing it once every 6 months would be more than enough. The problem about "not knowing everything" applies for general elections too. In fact, having referendum makes it even better. People who don't have a strong opinion on one topic can stay away from voting for it and focus on issues they care about. Like the Green party will not be able to get away with their idiotic policies on nuclear power and nuclear weapons just because they were attractive to the left on the other issues. | |||
| |||
"The Swiss system works well, and lets the people have their say. They hold referendums every 3 months, with several questions being asked. You can show your opinion on the ones you care about, and ignore the others. The last time I was there the big issue was question 17 - should they allow hot sausages to be sold on a Sunday." "What sort of sausages?" The petition was brought by a chain of service stations that wanted to sell hot dogs on Sundays (as they already did for the rest of the week). But it got widened to any sort of hot sausage. It got major media coverage at the time, but realistically that's because it was a proxy vote on whether laws that prevented things on Sunday should be overturned. | |||
"We are heading towards a Political civil war with the country split roughly 50/50 between right and left wing voters compounded by the fact most left-wing voters live in or nearby to large city's and the right mainly in the shires , It's going plague the UK for at least a decade or two and has the ability to cause serious religious ,financial and civil unrest . That's where we are sadly in my opinion." Pretty much the case with every Western country and some eastern countries too. Most of us thought that killing of religion and nationalism would result in a global unity of human race. We didn't realise that in spite of their problems, religion and nationalism was what actually held people together. So without them, what we are left with is a society that is so fractured and cannot agree on anything. | |||
"We are heading towards a Political civil war with the country split roughly 50/50 between right and left wing voters compounded by the fact most left-wing voters live in or nearby to large city's and the right mainly in the shires , It's going plague the UK for at least a decade or two and has the ability to cause serious religious ,financial and civil unrest . That's where we are sadly in my opinion." Unfortunately I agree.  | |||
"We are heading towards a Political civil war with the country split roughly 50/50 between right and left wing voters compounded by the fact most left-wing voters live in or nearby to large city's and the right mainly in the shires , It's going plague the UK for at least a decade or two and has the ability to cause serious religious ,financial and civil unrest . That's where we are sadly in my opinion." Constituencyâs are set up so they actually have roughly the same amount of people voting in each⊠which is the reason why rural constituencyâs are bigger in size than urban ones⊠| |||
| |||
"With any luck? A hung parliament leading to PR as demanded by the greens and LDâs. FPTP is not fit for purpose. Reform also support PR, if approved by a referendum. Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. " So you think our so called professional politicians are good at deciding without us LOL. | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." "Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way." "I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it?" "Isn't it? Explain why you think it's a bad idea to be "at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic". What bad outcome do you see arising from that?" " believe those best placed to make decisions on topics are those with personal specific expertise or access to suchlike (via third parties perhaps) and time to analyse it - Iâm sure youâd agree, no?" I do agree, but that's not a reason to ignore the opinions of lesser qualified people. I notice that you haven't answered my question on what bad outcome might arise from asking the populace. "And you claimed that Iâd said I want to get rid of democracy, did you not?" No I didn't. I sarcastically suggested that we ban democracy, as a way of lambasting your position. You've not yet expressed an opinion on whether democracy is a good idea or not. Perhaps you'd like to do that. | |||
| |||
| |||
"There is no choice between the main parties, and Reform are just the same in a new skin suit. We forsee for sectarianism and people voting with unfiltered ethnic motivations. Frankly, if the establishment don't start taking Rupert Lowe's points seriously we could very well see civil war in our lifetimes." Invest in pitchforks! | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way. I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it? Isn't it? Explain why you think it's a bad idea to be "at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic". What bad outcome do you see arising from that? believe those best placed to make decisions on topics are those with personal specific expertise or access to suchlike (via third parties perhaps) and time to analyse it - Iâm sure youâd agree, no? I do agree, but that's not a reason to ignore the opinions of lesser qualified people. I notice that you haven't answered my question on what bad outcome might arise from asking the populace. And you claimed that Iâd said I want to get rid of democracy, did you not? No I didn't. I sarcastically suggested that we ban democracy, as a way of lambasting your position. You've not yet expressed an opinion on whether democracy is a good idea or not. Perhaps you'd like to do that." What might arise from asking the populace? Well on the evening of the Brexit vote there was a spike (250%+) on Google searches in the UL of âwhat is the EUâ and âwhat is Brexitâ - indicative that at least some didnât know a thing about the referendum topic. And given that we realistically only have a sample size of that one referendum in recent times, itâs not been a glowing success, has it? Given the data these days about whether we were right or wrong to leave. (About 55-57% consistently say it was wrong, now) | |||
| |||
| |||
"We are heading towards a Political civil war with the country split roughly 50/50 between right and left wing voters compounded by the fact most left-wing voters live in or nearby to large city's and the right mainly in the shires , It's going plague the UK for at least a decade or two and has the ability to cause serious religious ,financial and civil unrest . That's where we are sadly in my opinion. Unfortunately I agree. "It's not looking good for political and racial harmony after this Bi-election result , The relatively harmless Liberals used to be the protest vote of choice now the protest votes are going to the more radical and divisive party's , Not much left of the traditional middle ground vote that kept the extremes at bay .. | |||
| |||
"What might arise from asking the populace? Well on the evening of the Brexit vote there was a spike (250%+) on Google searches in the UL of âwhat is the EUâ and âwhat is Brexitâ - indicative that at least some didnât know a thing about the referendum topic." Surely that shows people educating themselves on the topic before voting. That seems to be what you would like to happen. "And given that we realistically only have a sample size of that one referendum in recent times, itâs not been a glowing success, has it?" It also hasn't been an abject failure. The country's GDP is still roughly what it was, the UK still performs at similar levels to EU countries, and people still travel between the UK and the EU in much the same numbers as they previously did. "Given the data these days about whether we were right or wrong to leave. (About 55-57% consistently say it was wrong, now)" Ah, so when the numbers go in the direction that you approve of, suddenly the opinion of the voters is important. I asked you what bad outcome you saw arising from asking the populace, and you seem to be using Brexit as your example. I get the impression that you think the people made the wrong choice, and that's why you think referendums are a bad idea. | |||
"What might arise from asking the populace? Well on the evening of the Brexit vote there was a spike (250%+) on Google searches in the UL of âwhat is the EUâ and âwhat is Brexitâ - indicative that at least some didnât know a thing about the referendum topic. Surely that shows people educating themselves on the topic before voting. That seems to be what you would like to happen. " âOn the evening if the Brexit voteâ | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win" Did the Green party really campaign much about the environment in this election? | |||
"you seem to be using Brexit as your example. I get the impression that you think the people made the wrong choice, and that's why you think referendums are a bad idea." Feel free to provide me with another example of a nationwide referendum in recent years to discuss. Letâs say the last decade. I think referendums *can* be a good idea, when delivered correctly, as Iâve used the Swiss as an example. I think the way weâve done them in the past falls some way short of democratic ideals. | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environment in this election?" They are in favour of population control in Israel. | |||
"We are heading towards a Political civil war with the country split roughly 50/50 between right and left wing voters compounded by the fact most left-wing voters live in or nearby to large city's and the right mainly in the shires , It's going plague the UK for at least a decade or two and has the ability to cause serious religious ,financial and civil unrest . That's where we are sadly in my opinion. Unfortunately I agree.
It's not looking good for political and racial harmony after this Bi-election result , The relatively harmless Liberals used to be the protest vote of choice now the protest votes are going to the more radical and divisive party's , Not much left of the traditional middle ground vote that kept the extremes at bay .."I'm sure we'll soon be sentimental about the good old days of centrist dads like Sir Keir and Rishi Sunak | |||
"you seem to be using Brexit as your example. I get the impression that you think the people made the wrong choice, and that's why you think referendums are a bad idea. Feel free to provide me with another example of a nationwide referendum in recent years to discuss. Letâs say the last decade. I think referendums *can* be a good idea, when delivered correctly, as Iâve used the Swiss as an example. I think the way weâve done them in the past falls some way short of democratic ideals." Perhaps a thread about referendums could be a good idea, as they're not really the subject of this thread. | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environment in this election? They are in favour of population control in Israel." Yeah I don't remember seeing them discussing anything environmental this election | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environment in this election? They are in favour of population control in Israel. Yeah I don't remember seeing them discussing anything environmental this election "Perhaps the video they made in Urdu was all about recycling? | |||
"you seem to be using Brexit as your example. I get the impression that you think the people made the wrong choice, and that's why you think referendums are a bad idea. Feel free to provide me with another example of a nationwide referendum in recent years to discuss. Letâs say the last decade. I think referendums *can* be a good idea, when delivered correctly, as Iâve used the Swiss as an example. I think the way weâve done them in the past falls some way short of democratic ideals. Perhaps a thread about referendums could be a good idea, as they're not really the subject of this thread. "Itâs about âthe future of politicsâ is it not?  | |||
"Next up 07 May Around 5,000 seats across 136 local councils will be up for grabs. Potentially millions of voters turning out, and many enthused by the end of two party politics. " Its never been 2 party politics. Always been an option to protest vote | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environment in this election? They are in favour of population control in Israel. Yeah I don't remember seeing them discussing anything environmental this election
Perhaps the video they made in Urdu was all about recycling? "They did show some cleaning workers if I remember correctly  | |||
"With any luck? A hung parliament leading to PR as demanded by the greens and LDâs. FPTP is not fit for purpose. Reform also support PR, if approved by a referendum. Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. " The social media bots tell the sheeple how to vote | |||
"What might arise from asking the populace?" "Well on the evening of the Brexit vote there was a spike (250%+) on Google searches in the UL of âwhat is the EUâ and âwhat is Brexitâ - indicative that at least some didnât know a thing about the referendum topic." "Surely that shows people educating themselves on the topic before voting. That seems to be what you would like to happen." "âOn the evening if the Brexit voteâ" The word 'evening' has a flexible meaning, but it's generally accepted as being the period after 'afternoon' and before 'night'. The polls close at 22:00, which is definitely 'night'. So anyone googling in the evening is likely to be genning up on the subject before going out to vote. Why would anyone cast their vote, and only then choose to look up the subject online? | |||
"you seem to be using Brexit as your example. I get the impression that you think the people made the wrong choice, and that's why you think referendums are a bad idea." "Feel free to provide me with another example of a nationwide referendum in recent years to discuss. Letâs say the last decade." Referendums are held in other countries from which conclusions can be drawn. You've not said that you're limiting your opinion to just the UK. "I think referendums *can* be a good idea, when delivered correctly, as Iâve used the Swiss as an example. I think the way weâve done them in the past falls some way short of democratic ideals." You started this discussion by posting "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty". Are you now changing your position to 'referendums as they have been performed in the UK in recent years are a terrible idea'? If so you seem to be basing your opinion on a very small sample size. | |||
"Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty. Yes, let's get rid of that awful democracy business. The people can't be trusted to vote the right way. I donât believe thatâs what I said, is it? Isn't it? Explain why you think it's a bad idea to be "at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic". What bad outcome do you see arising from that? believe those best placed to make decisions on topics are those with personal specific expertise or access to suchlike (via third parties perhaps) and time to analyse it - Iâm sure youâd agree, no? I do agree, but that's not a reason to ignore the opinions of lesser qualified people. I notice that you haven't answered my question on what bad outcome might arise from asking the populace. And you claimed that Iâd said I want to get rid of democracy, did you not? No I didn't. I sarcastically suggested that we ban democracy, as a way of lambasting your position. You've not yet expressed an opinion on whether democracy is a good idea or not. Perhaps you'd like to do that. What might arise from asking the populace? Well on the evening of the Brexit vote there was a spike (250%+) on Google searches in the UL of âwhat is the EUâ and âwhat is Brexitâ - indicative that at least some didnât know a thing about the referendum topic. And given that we realistically only have a sample size of that one referendum in recent times, itâs not been a glowing success, has it? Given the data these days about whether we were right or wrong to leave. (About 55-57% consistently say it was wrong, now) " I will respond to that if I may⊠Firstly, do you have any evidence that those doing the searches you mentioned, actually voted? And if so, is there data on which way they voted. Secondly, nearly all votes in parliament are under the whip. Party members have potential consequences if they donât vote with the leadership. Is that parliamentary democracy? Because it sounds like an authoritarian dictatorship to me, regardless of which party is in power. Thirdly, you seem to be making the assumption that every MP is clued up and knowledgeable on every bill that passes through parliament. Or at the very least, more knowledgeable than the general public. Iâd suggest that thatâs not the case. MPs are human and will take more interest in what they are interested in and next to no interest in what doesnât. But either way it doesnât make any difference, they have to follow the party line. Although some donât of course, but very few. I donât have to follow any party line and neither does anyone else. Fourthly, governments can sometimes pursue a policy that the vast majority of citizens are against. Is that really what a government should do? Thatcher did it with the Poll tax. Starmer is currently doing it with so many things thereâs almost too many to mention, elections (since done a u turn I know but he was actually going to break the law), jury trials, giving away control of Gibraltar, government approved child abuse and mutilation through gender changing drugs. Stalling the r@pe gangâs enquiry, digital ID which they are still pressing on with by the way, the list goes on. All things that the vast majority of people seem to be against and this government doesnât care. Membership of the EU has been the only referendum in modern times, no idea if itâs the only one. In the 70s it was voted for, in 2016 it was voted to leave. So if the Brexit vote was âwrongâ with the benefit of hindsight (not my opinion) then the first vote was also wrong with the benefit of hindsight. The notion that our government have our best interest at heart and are only enacting what the majority voted for at the last general election is ludicrous. They donât care what we want, they only care what they want. All parties, not just this lot. | |||
" The word 'evening' has a flexible meaning, but it's generally accepted as being the period after 'afternoon' and before 'night'. The polls close at 22:00, which is definitely 'night'. So anyone googling in the evening is likely to be genning up on the subject before going out to vote. Why would anyone cast their vote, and only then choose to look up the subject online?" Letâs say youâre right. How good is someoneâs research on âwhat is the EUâ when they commence it at (letâs say) 7pm before dashing out to vote before 9:30, 9:45? Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician. | |||
| |||
"Membership of the EU has been the only referendum in modern times, no idea if itâs the only one. In the 70s it was voted for, in 2016 it was voted to leave." The 1975 referendum was whether to join the EEC, which was a trading group long before the EU existed. We didn't get a vote as to whether we joined the EU or not, the government took that decision for us. | |||
"Yep, another one in favour of PR here. Electing a party that in theory could be able to govern absolute with only 30% of the vote is just not Cricket. We obviously need a hung parliament next time out to get the ball rolling, and at this moment, that looks very possible." It absolutely is plausible, and if PR is the prize for forming a government, thatâs a great outcome. Our whole parliamentary system is outdated. PR, even new parliamentary buildings are required to move ourselves away from the 2-party debating club/argument room that we currently have. | |||
"Membership of the EU has been the only referendum in modern times, no idea if itâs the only one. In the 70s it was voted for, in 2016 it was voted to leave. The 1975 referendum was whether to join the EEC, which was a trading group long before the EU existed. We didn't get a vote as to whether we joined the EU or not, the government took that decision for us." The phrase âever closer unionâ dates back to 1957 and the EC treaty of Rome. An interesting titbit. | |||
"The word 'evening' has a flexible meaning, but it's generally accepted as being the period after 'afternoon' and before 'night'. The polls close at 22:00, which is definitely 'night'. So anyone googling in the evening is likely to be genning up on the subject before going out to vote. Why would anyone cast their vote, and only then choose to look up the subject online?" "Letâs say youâre right. How good is someoneâs research on âwhat is the EUâ when they commence it at (letâs say) 7pm before dashing out to vote before 9:30, 9:45?" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, and now you're claiming that there's evidence of people educating themselves. Your argument is not consistent. Again, why should we ignore the views of those that have not educated themselves? Are you basing this purely on the fact that the Brexit vote went the wrong way in your opinion? | |||
"Yep, another one in favour of PR here. Electing a party that in theory could be able to govern absolute with only 30% of the vote is just not Cricket. We obviously need a hung parliament next time out to get the ball rolling, and at this moment, that looks very possible. It absolutely is plausible, and if PR is the prize for forming a government, thatâs a great outcome. Our whole parliamentary system is outdated. PR, even new parliamentary buildings are required to move ourselves away from the 2-party debating club/argument room that we currently have. " PRâs detractors refer to âhorse tradingâ to form governments. I prefer to see it as less tribalistic than what we currently have to endure with necessary compromise needed. In other words, the hope would be our politicians might grow up a bit, learn how to compromise & get along a bit better. | |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, " Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? | |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? " Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." | |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty."" Indeed. I donât see the word âmostâ in my text anywhere, can you point it out? Our recent example, Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes. Is 700k âmostâ of the population? | |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." Indeed. I donât see the word âmostâ in my text anywhere, can you point it out? Our recent example, Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes. Is 700k âmostâ of the population?" So? How many of them do you think don't have any "expertise or research" on the topic? Do you think the people who voted remain had "expertise or research" on the topic. The problem with the modern left is alluding their defeats to reasons like these when the real reason is that other people have different values to you. | |||
| |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." Indeed. I donât see the word âmostâ in my text anywhere, can you point it out? Our recent example, Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes. Is 700k âmostâ of the population? So? How many of them do you think don't have any "expertise or research" on the topic? Do you think the people who voted remain had "expertise or research" on the topic. The problem with the modern left is alluding their defeats to reasons like these when the real reason is that other people have different values to you. " I didnât point out anything about remain or leave and expertise or research, did I? Why do you frame it as such? | |||
| |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." Indeed. I donât see the word âmostâ in my text anywhere, can you point it out? Our recent example, Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes. Is 700k âmostâ of the population? So? How many of them do you think don't have any "expertise or research" on the topic? Do you think the people who voted remain had "expertise or research" on the topic. The problem with the modern left is alluding their defeats to reasons like these when the real reason is that other people have different values to you. I didnât point out anything about remain or leave and expertise or research, did I? Why do you frame it as such? " "Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes" What are those 700k votes? Which part of them lack "expertise or research" on the topic? See, your first post on this topic was pretty clear. Not sure why you are doing these gymnastics to pretend like you didn't say what you said | |||
" That's not the point. You claimed that most people voting had no idea of the issues, Once again, inventing or misreading? Or just misrepresenting? Your own post on this thread: "Referendums are a terrible way of deciding anything though. Youâre at the mercy of people voting without any expertise or research on a topic. See also: Death penalty." Indeed. I donât see the word âmostâ in my text anywhere, can you point it out? Our recent example, Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes. Is 700k âmostâ of the population? So? How many of them do you think don't have any "expertise or research" on the topic? Do you think the people who voted remain had "expertise or research" on the topic. The problem with the modern left is alluding their defeats to reasons like these when the real reason is that other people have different values to you. I didnât point out anything about remain or leave and expertise or research, did I? Why do you frame it as such? "Brexit was decided by potentially 700k votes" What are those 700k votes? Do you think which part of them lack "expertise or research" on the topic? See your first post on this topic was pretty clear. Not sure why you are doing these gymnastics to pretend like you didn't say what you said "Iâm not doing gymnastics, Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly). Like I said, we have very little data to work with re: British referenda so itâs obvious that Brexit will be the prime example. Letâs take one example, the story from shortly after the referendum, the chap (was in the papers and online) who roamed the streets wearing a t-shirt saying âWe won, now send them backâ - do you think he was educated on what brexit meant? (You can still google that story by the way) And what about those on the remain side who assumed the result would be 65-35? Were they educated enough on the topic? | |||
| |||
" Iâm not doing gymnastics, Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly). Like I said, we have very little data to work with re: British referenda so itâs obvious that Brexit will be the prime example. Letâs take one example, the story from shortly after the referendum, the chap (was in the papers and online) who roamed the streets wearing a t-shirt saying âWe won, now send them backâ - do you think he was educated on what brexit meant? (You can still google that story by the way) And what about those on the remain side who assumed the result would be 65-35? Were they educated enough on the topic? " You saw one person who voted leave that said something stupid and that's you think that's enough to dismiss the entire concept of referendum? Do you think people voting in the general election are all genius who understand the policy they are voting for? Be it general election or referendum, there will always be some ignorant on either side and it usually balances out. In fact, referendums are better that way because many people who don't understand something can avoid voting where as with general election whereas in general elections, you are forced to vote for a politician over an issue you deeply care about even though you may not like their stance or don't understand their stance on other issues. | |||
"A key question that we need to understand, and some need to decide, is whether Parliament exists to represent the people or whether to do the bidding of the people. Because those two things are not necessarily the same. " What's the point of representing people if you aren't doing the bidding of the people? | |||
" You saw one person who voted leave that said something stupid and that's you think that's enough to dismiss the entire concept of referendum?." This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting. | |||
| |||
"Hopefully more seperatism. Westminster only serves one country. The greens back indy. Nothing about Westminster will ever be good. From d*unk votes from ring bells in pubs nearby, to members not turning up daily. It's just an extension of royal courts of the past. Unfit for humanity Increased separatism, whilst understandable for wales, Scotland and NI, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. We should be increasing links with others, not cutting them" Separation does not mean cutting ties. | |||
"A key question that we need to understand, and some need to decide, is whether Parliament exists to represent the people or whether to do the bidding of the people. Because those two things are not necessarily the same. What's the point of representing people if you aren't doing the bidding of the people?" The bidding of the people can be demonstrably worse for them. Example: the people want the death penalty, voted on in a referendum which ends 52/48, the magic number. So we bring in the death penalty. Except we canât do that without leaving the ECHR. And thereâd potentially be other ramifications, nations might renege on trade deals and such. Soft power wanes. A good representative government will steer the nation away from the death penalty, a bad one will say âyou got it, right away!â | |||
"Hopefully more seperatism. Westminster only serves one country. The greens back indy. Nothing about Westminster will ever be good. From d*unk votes from ring bells in pubs nearby, to members not turning up daily. It's just an extension of royal courts of the past. Unfit for humanity Increased separatism, whilst understandable for wales, Scotland and NI, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. We should be increasing links with others, not cutting them Separation does not mean cutting ties. " It means weakening them. | |||
" You saw one person who voted leave that said something stupid and that's you think that's enough to dismiss the entire concept of referendum?. This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting." Oh man đ€Łđ€Ł | |||
" You saw one person who voted leave that said something stupid and that's you think that's enough to dismiss the entire concept of referendum?. This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting. Oh man đ€Łđ€Ł" Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ? It seems fabs is full of them  | |||
"A key question that we need to understand, and some need to decide, is whether Parliament exists to represent the people or whether to do the bidding of the people. Because those two things are not necessarily the same. The bidding of the people can be demonstrably worse for them. Example: the people want the death penalty, voted on in a referendum which ends 52/48, the magic number. A good representative government will steer the nation away from the death penalty, a bad one will say âyou got it, right away!â" So a good government ignores the people and a bad one does the peoples budding? I know thatâs not exactly what you said but itâs reasonable to extrapolate that you think a government should avoid follows the will of the people if you think that the will of the people is wrong? Iâm actually against the death penalty. I think there are better options with less consequences when a judgement is wrong and but cheaper than what we are doing. But if a majority were to vote for it, so be it. The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. " And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. " Governments make decisions all the time that the majority would not support. It is a semantic play to suggest a party who secures the majority vote governs to appease the majority. PR is a nothing more than hurdles to progress and an avenue for fringe groups to try and take some control. | |||
" PR is a nothing more than hurdles to progress and an avenue for fringe groups to try and take some control. " And yet itâs vastly more popular than FPTP worldwide (in terms of number of nations using it) | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. " But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think " Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference. Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. I wonder if we can think of any other majorities in history who turned out to be on the wrong side? | |||
"Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right." And here we are back at the beginning. We shouldn't allow people to vote in things, because they might choose the wrong option. | |||
"Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. And here we are back at the beginning. We shouldn't allow people to vote in things, because they might choose the wrong option. " Still inventing things, I see? Find me one time when Iâve said voting should be refused, restricted or in any way done away with? Or kindly stop misrepresenting me. | |||
"Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right." "And here we are back at the beginning. We shouldn't allow people to vote in things, because they might choose the wrong option." "Find me one time when Iâve said voting should be refused, restricted or in any way done away with?" You haven't said that, you've just heavily implied it. That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words. | |||
"Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. And here we are back at the beginning. We shouldn't allow people to vote in things, because they might choose the wrong option. Find me one time when Iâve said voting should be refused, restricted or in any way done away with? You haven't said that, you've just heavily implied it. That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words." Summarising incorrectly, of course
Thanks for at least admitting that youâre wrong. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference. Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. I wonder if we can think of any other majorities in history who turned out to be on the wrong side? " Everyone thinks. Itâs actually impossible to not think. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference. Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. I wonder if we can think of any other majorities in history who turned out to be on the wrong side? Everyone thinks. Itâs actually impossible to not think. " And yet: Reform polling at high twenties  | |||
"That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words." "Summarising incorrectly, of course" So you claim. But when people ask you direct questions to see what you stance is, you're curiosly reluctant to state it. "Thanks for at least admitting that youâre wrong." I haven't admitted that. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that. I see that it's OK for you to fabricate 'quotes' from other people, but you're very keen to pin others down when you think they're guilty of doing it to you. | |||
"That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words. Summarising incorrectly, of course So you claim. But when people ask you direct questions to see what you stance is, you're curiosly reluctant to state it. " Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one. | |||
"That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words." "Summarising incorrectly, of course" "So you claim. But when people ask you direct questions to see what you stance is, you're curiosly reluctant to state it." "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one." You're quick to reply when you can deflect a statement and get in a personal insult at the same time. But you keep avoiding all those bits where I and others have pointed out your errors. I think we've all come to a conclusion on your debating style now. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference. Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. I wonder if we can think of any other majorities in history who turned out to be on the wrong side? Everyone thinks. Itâs actually impossible to not think. And yet: Reform polling at high twenties "So with both statement being true, those stating an intention to vote reform must have thought about it before arriving at that conclusion. Go on, turn that into yet another insult to anyone that doesnât agree with you. What a blessing to think youâre right about everything đ€·ââïž | |||
" PR is a nothing more than hurdles to progress and an avenue for fringe groups to try and take some control. And yet itâs vastly more popular than FPTP worldwide (in terms of number of nations using it)" Using your own example, the majority are not always right. Countries who use PR have a much slower rate of agreement. Most policies are changed significantly, parties coming together to force changes on other future policies, basically using their influences to gain advantages. It isn't something that would work at all well here in my opinion, nothing would ever get done. | |||
" PR is a nothing more than hurdles to progress and an avenue for fringe groups to try and take some control. And yet itâs vastly more popular than FPTP worldwide (in terms of number of nations using it) Using your own example, the majority are not always right. Countries who use PR have a much slower rate of agreement. Most policies are changed significantly, parties coming together to force changes on other future policies, basically using their influences to gain advantages. It isn't something that would work at all well here in my opinion, nothing would ever get done. " But weâve never tried it. Stuff gets done in PR systems, so itâs just ann assumption on your part. | |||
" The one thing our society seems to be lacking is the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion to us and that disagreeing doesnât necessarily mean they are wrong. And we also need to accept that âthe majorityâ arenât always right - a govt that simply appeases the majority isnât necessarily the right thing to do. But that is what democracy is. The majority wins. When it comes to politics there often isnât a definitive right and wrong. Is increasing tax right or wrong. Both is probably the best answer. But youâve certainly given me an insight as to how you think Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference. Just because something is a majority, it doesnât mean theyâre right. I wonder if we can think of any other majorities in history who turned out to be on the wrong side? Everyone thinks. Itâs actually impossible to not think. And yet: Reform polling at high twenties
So with both statement being true, those stating an intention to vote reform must have thought about it before arriving at that conclusion.
Go on, turn that into yet another insult to anyone that doesnât agree with you. What a blessing to think youâre right about everything đ€·ââïž"Iâd had thought the emojiâs were a good indicator that I was being tongue in cheek. Sorry, I should have thought more about it. | |||
"That's why I haven't claimed that you have said it. I haven't phrased my post to make it look like you said it, it's obvious that I am summarising your position using my own words. Summarising incorrectly, of course So you claim. But when people ask you direct questions to see what you stance is, you're curiosly reluctant to state it. Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one. You're quick to reply when you can deflect a statement and get in a personal insult at the same time. But you keep avoiding all those bits where I and others have pointed out your errors. I think we've all come to a conclusion on your debating style now." Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here? Or is that another misrepresentation? | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environm this election?" Let's hope that all parties, including the Green party.put the environment as higher priority for protection now | |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environm this election? Let's hope that all parties, including the Green party.put the environment as higher priority for protection now "I think they were too busy talking about Reform to talk about the Environment | |||
| |||
"Let's hope that all parties put the environment as a higher priority for protection, after this Green party win Did the Green party really campaign much about the environm this election? Let's hope that all parties, including the Green party.put the environment as higher priority for protection now
I think they were too busy talking about Reform to talk about the Environment "Greens are full of shit Lecturing us on EVâs while they are chauffeured in diesel cars NIMBYs on free solar energy Abolish private rented homes and free council houses (1.3M waiting list) to migrants. | |||
" PR is a nothing more than hurdles to progress and an avenue for fringe groups to try and take some control. And yet itâs vastly more popular than FPTP worldwide (in terms of number of nations using it) Using your own example, the majority are not always right. Countries who use PR have a much slower rate of agreement. Most policies are changed significantly, parties coming together to force changes on other future policies, basically using their influences to gain advantages. It isn't something that would work at all well here in my opinion, nothing would ever get done. But weâve never tried it. Stuff gets done in PR systems, so itâs just ann assumption on your part. " I would call it more of a considered opinion. Maybe you should push for more free voting, isn't that a happy mid ground? | |||
"I never read the politics thread because of all the fascists so I won't be reading this one. Just wanted to say how ecstatic I was about the Gorton and Denton results. My hope for the future is being restored, tears of joy đđđ" I also had tears đ€Łđ€Ł | |||
| |||
"Bad referendum is the the same as bad law.. It does work in some countries but it has to be mandatory perhaps.. As should voting in a general election.. Is that too draconian?" Its too simplistic to say referendums work in some countries. In the UK referendums are not common place. A complex question was put the people without any understanding of the implications which gave room for misinformation. Referenda are common in Ireland to amend the constitution. A referendum commission is in place to give people balanced and unbiased info on what the referendum is about. The govt gave a complex question without any definitive guidance or info. And the fall out of that mess is still being played out today. | |||
"It looks like the police are involved now in the allegations of family voting. It won't change the result, the Greens won, it was their night. However such a spike in family voting should not be ignored either. Stop it now before it gets worse for everyone's sake. How you police this concern when it comes to postal votes could be a big problem too" Postal Voting is THE issue if , as Reform state they are concerned about "family voting" love to hear their comments on this , | |||
"I never read the politics thread because of all the fascists so I won't be reading this one. Just wanted to say how ecstatic I was about the Gorton and Denton results. My hope for the future is being restored, tears of joy đđđ" Yup ! Very happy indeed. Kindness, compassion, and optimism for a cleaner, greener and more inclusive future won the day. | |||
"I never read the politics thread because of all the fascists so I won't be reading this one. Just wanted to say how ecstatic I was about the Gorton and Denton results. My hope for the future is being restored, tears of joy đđđ Yup ! Very happy indeed. Kindness, compassion, and optimism for a cleaner, greener and more inclusive future won the day. "Irrespective of other policies, the Green Party are economically illiterate and would bankrupt the country very quickly (based on their 2024 manifesto). | |||
"You're quick to reply when you can deflect a statement and get in a personal insult at the same time. But you keep avoiding all those bits where I and others have pointed out your errors. I think we've all come to a conclusion on your debating style now." "Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here?" OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough? "Or is that another misrepresentation?" The evidence suggests that it isn't. | |||
"You're quick to reply when you can deflect a statement and get in a personal insult at the same time. But you keep avoiding all those bits where I and others have pointed out your errors. I think we've all come to a conclusion on your debating style now. Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here? OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough? Or is that another misrepresentation? The evidence suggests that it isn't." Are they âattacksâ? Iâd refute each of them quite comfortably. | |||
"You're quick to reply when you can deflect a statement and get in a personal insult at the same time. But you keep avoiding all those bits where I and others have pointed out your errors. I think we've all come to a conclusion on your debating style now. Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here? OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough? Or is that another misrepresentation? The evidence suggests that it isn't. Are they âattacksâ? Iâd refute each of them quite comfortably. " They clearly all personal attacks. I imagine you'd 'refute' them by repeating yourself ad nauseum. | |||
"Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here?" "OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough?" "Are they âattacksâ? Iâd refute each of them quite comfortably." Nobody said 'attacks'. I said you were fond of personal insults, and you asked me to point some out. Are you going to claim that any of those aren't personal insults? | |||
"Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here? OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough? Are they âattacksâ? Iâd refute each of them quite comfortably. Nobody said 'attacks'. I said you were fond of personal insults, and you asked me to point some out. Are you going to claim that any of those aren't personal insults?" Oh my bad, youâre quite right - you said insults And yes, Iâm going to claim theyâre not personal insults, though I can see how one might frame them as such when they purposely remove them from context. | |||
"It looks like the police are involved now in the allegations of family voting. It won't change the result, the Greens won, it was their night. However such a spike in family voting should not be ignored either. Stop it now before it gets worse for everyone's sake. How you police this concern when it comes to postal votes could be a big problem too Postal Voting is THE issue if , as Reform state they are concerned about "family voting" love to hear their comments on this ," The report states this family voting was seen at the actual polling stations. They don't know yet about family postal votes but it was just pointing out it would be all but impossible to police. | |||
"It looks like the police are involved now in the allegations of family voting. It won't change the result, the Greens won, it was their night. However such a spike in family voting should not be ignored either. Stop it now before it gets worse for everyone's sake. How you police this concern when it comes to postal votes could be a big problem too Postal Voting is THE issue if , as Reform state they are concerned about "family voting" love to hear their comments on this , The report states this family voting was seen at the actual polling stations. They don't know yet about family postal votes but it was just pointing out it would be all but impossible to police. " At the moment thereâs no story. Only an investigation will reveal anything. Whether anything happens will reveal much, either way. | |||
"And yes, Iâm going to claim theyâre not personal insults, though I can see how one might frame them as such when they purposely remove them from context." Then I shall encourage everyone to go and read them in context, and come with their own opinions as to whether they were intended as insults or not. | |||
"And yes, Iâm going to claim theyâre not personal insults, though I can see how one might frame them as such when they purposely remove them from context. Then I shall encourage everyone to go and read them in context, and come with their own opinions as to whether they were intended as insults or not." Feel free to go one better. Report them all if you like | |||
"And yes, Iâm going to claim theyâre not personal insults, though I can see how one might frame them as such when they purposely remove them from context. Then I shall encourage everyone to go and read them in context, and come with their own opinions as to whether they were intended as insults or not." I think anyone with basic comprehensive skills can understand the intention, and the sub text that anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior, but with no evidence this is actually the case. | |||
"Hopefully more seperatism. Westminster only serves one country. The greens back indy. Nothing about Westminster will ever be good. From d*unk votes from ring bells in pubs nearby, to members not turning up daily. It's just an extension of royal courts of the past. Unfit for humanity" Some of the best decisions of my life were made d*unk. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Ancient Persians had a custom of deliberating on important matters while d*unk, and then re-evaluating those decisions the following day while sober. Do not underestimate a d*unk decision. | |||
"Hopefully more seperatism. Westminster only serves one country. The greens back indy. Nothing about Westminster will ever be good. From d*unk votes from ring bells in pubs nearby, to members not turning up daily. It's just an extension of royal courts of the past. Unfit for humanity Some of the best decisions of my life were made d*unk. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Ancient Persians had a custom of deliberating on important matters while d*unk, and then re-evaluating those decisions the following day while sober. Do not underestimate a d*unk decision." Donât send that d*unk text though. Seriously guys. | |||
"Personal insults? Care to point any out that Iâve made here? OK then: "You are vey fond of putting words in otherâs mouths arenât you" "Youâre smart enough to know that youâre clutching at straws. Youâd make a good politician" "Iâm pointing out facts which you are once again attempting to manipulate very obviously (and poorly)" "This is why youâre impossible to debate with. Your arguments and non-sequiturs are exhausting" "Another one who doesnât understand âexampleâ" "Indeed. I think - and thatâs the difference" "Still inventing things, I see" "Iâve been remarkably clear, in my opinion. Mayhap itâs an understanding issue rather than a delivery one" Is that enough? Are they âattacksâ? Iâd refute each of them quite comfortably. Nobody said 'attacks'. I said you were fond of personal insults, and you asked me to point some out. Are you going to claim that any of those aren't personal insults? Oh my bad, youâre quite right - you said insults And yes, Iâm going to claim theyâre not personal insults, though I can see how one might frame them as such when they purposely remove them from context. " Apparently for some on here being told they are wrong on a topic is an excuse to claim they've been insulted.. Throw their teddy and refuse to debate, so precious.. 
Diddums  | |||
