Jeremy Corbyn

[bluewolf]

The Westminster government needs to be said to separate it from the Scottish government.
The English......what is wrong with that, do the English not say.... The Scots.
I saw a lot more xenophobic stuff against SNP/Scots than I did the other way around. Many did not make any allowances for non SNP supporting Scots.
This was fueled by the Tory and Labour campaigns to keep the SNP from gaining any influence at Westminster.

What happened was that the Labour leadership Murphy,Kezdale and Curran said so many stupid things.
'It is easy to fool the SNP', 'We won't lose a single seat to the SNP' as examples.
Mind you he was right about the single seat that they did not lose:lol:

These quotes were repeated thousands of times on social media, made them look like total numpties and cost them dearly.

Which was the point I was making on my thread about the Labour leadership.

Stop being your usual obtuse self. You know exactly what point I was making, and being overly literal only makes you appear more of a WUM than everyone on here already knows you are..

 

[jp5]

But, if you consider what Mr Desmond actually wanted/needed, then it was a massive failing. Let's not forget that the voting system was in place long before the election, so they knew exactly what they needed, and they got nowhere near getting it.

The massive failing is the electoral system. You can get people to vote for a party (which Mr Desmond / Farage apparently did very well), but for that to translate into power you need a fair system.

 

[c1973]

Surprisingly the thread gets round to the snp. Who'd a thunk it?

😴

 

[bluewolf]

The massive failing is the electoral system. You can get people to vote for a party (which Mr Desmond / Farage apparently did very well), but for that to translate into power you need a fair system.

There is no such thing as a fair system. Freedom to vote/not vote is a basic right, but the sheer amount of non voters means that no system is fair. What Desmond/Farage did is get people to talk about (and like) their policies. What they didn't do, is convert that positive energy into seats. Without seats, Farage doesn't get his Power, and Desmond doesn't get his much desired Knighthood.

 

[jp5]

There is no such thing as a fair system. Freedom to vote/not vote is a basic right, but the sheer amount of non voters means that no system is fair. What Desmond/Farage did is get people to talk about (and like) their policies. What they didn't do, is convert that positive energy into seats. Without seats, Farage doesn't get his Power, and Desmond doesn't get his much desired Knighthood.

Power might take another electoral cycle (depending on the EU referendum outcome!) for UKIP, with their 160 second places I think it was. Would expect them to convert a significant portion of those.

And there is no such thing as a completely fair system. But there are fairer, more representative options than we have right now - you only have to look at the numbers to see that.

 

[bluewolf]

Power might take another electoral cycle (depending on the EU referendum outcome!) for UKIP, with their 160 second places I think it was. Would expect them to convert a significant portion of those.

And there is no such thing as a completely fair system. But there are fairer, more representative options than we have right now - you only have to look at the numbers to see that.

Yes, but the electorate don't want them. A system that the majority don't want is, by definition, unfair..

I have a suspicion that the UKIP lifecycle might not last long enough to convert those 2nd places.. Infighting, and a perceived want to shift even further to the right by the rank and file membership might just cause an implosion. The timing of the implosion could be a significant factor in the next election.

 

[jp5]

Yes, but the electorate don't want them. A system that the majority don't want is, by definition, unfair..

I have a suspicion that the UKIP lifecycle might not last long enough to convert those 2nd places.. Infighting, and a perceived want to shift even further to the right by the rank and file membership might just cause an implosion. The timing of the implosion could be a significant factor in the next election.

Your definition of unfair is wrong, but agree that nothing will change if it would disadvantage the Government of the day. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Stop being your usual obtuse self. You know exactly what point I was making, and being overly literal only makes you appear more of a WUM than everyone on here already knows you are..

I am pretty sure I got your point which I thought a tad one sided.
Sometimes things can look differently from the other side of the fence.
Hence my reply.

 

[bluewolf]

Your definition of unfair is wrong, .

Forcing a unwanted system onto the electorate could be described as unjust, inequitable and/or discriminatory... Or, just unfair.. Educating them to want a different system would remove that barrier..

 

[bluewolf]

I am pretty sure I got your point which I thought a tad one sided.
Sometimes things can look differently from the other side of the fence.
Hence my reply.

How could my point be one sided when it clearly referenced the xenophobic outbursts from both sides of the wall.. The SNP played a blinder of a campaign. A campaign based on the "Look at them, not at us" agenda.. I have a lot of respect for the campaign they ran. It was a lesson in modern politics.

 

[jp5]

Forcing a unwanted system onto the electorate could be described as unjust, inequitable and/or discrminatory... Or, just unfair.. Educating them to want a different system would remove that barrier..

Just because something is against the wishes of the electorate does not make it unfair, discriminatory etc.

Anyway the current system will disservice one of the major parties one day and then we may eventually see change.

 

[bluewolf]

Just because something is against the wishes of the electorate does not make it unfair, discriminatory etc.

In my humble opinion, forcing something onto a group of people that they do not want does make it unfair.. That's not to say that the system is not better, but if we don't want it, then it would be unfair to foist it upon us just because you want it (I use the word "you" as a name for the Minority.)
HOWEVER, we have descended into semantics and it's most likely adding nothing to the discussion

 

[jp5]

In my humble opinion, forcing something onto a group of people that they do not want does make it unfair.. That's not to say that the system is not better, but if we don't want it, then it would be unfair to foist it upon us just because you want it (I use the word "you" as a name for the Minority.)
HOWEVER, we have descended into semantics and it's most likely adding nothing to the discussion

Aha, so child tax credit should not be cut? Under 25s should not be denied access to housing benefit? Doctors should not have to work weekends? (I know many do already)

 

[bluewolf]

Aha, so child tax credit should not be cut? Under 25s should not be denied access to housing benefit? Doctors should not have to work weekends? (I know many do already)

Lol, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who agrees with the current Government. Let me assure you that I am not, have never been, nor most likely will ever be a Tory voter.

 

[jp5]

Lol, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who agrees with the current Government. Let me assure you that I am not, have never been, nor most likely will ever be a Tory voter.

Not presuming anything at all - simply pointing out that your logic was flawed.

 

[bluewolf]

Not presuming anything at all - simply pointing out that your logic was flawed.

Ok, so just because the government can introduce spending restrictions which will curb child tax credit, cut housing benefit and force Dictirs to do something which everyone knows they already do. Somehow, this proves that introducing something the electorate don't want is fair. It's not fair, government policy doesn't have to be fair. It can be totally unfair. It can be 100%, cast iron, bulletproof unfair. That's the system. Fairness doesn't even have to enter the equation.

 

[jp5]

Ok, so just because the government can introduce spending restrictions which will curb child tax credit, cut housing benefit and force Dictirs to do something which everyone knows they already do. Somehow, this proves that introducing something the electorate don't want is fair. It's not fair, government policy doesn't have to be fair. It can be totally unfair. It can be 100%, cast iron, bulletproof unfair. That's the system. Fairness doesn't even have to enter the equation.

Indeed, but with a fairer voting system our country might be more democratic. And a better democracy is something any government should seek, whether it benefits them or not.

 

[SocketRocket]

Indeed, but with a fairer voting system our country might be more democratic. And a better democracy is something any government should seek, whether it benefits them or not.

So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?

Which we may have had if the 4 million Kipper votes were all cast in Scotland.

The UK voting system is broke.
It suits a two party system and will never change so long as we have a two party system.
Lib Dems in 2010 and Kippers and SNP in 2015 show up how flawed it is.

Is it not about time the people of the UK addressed this situation.

 

[jp5]

So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?

Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.