Why the Corbyn hatred?
Discussion
AJL308 said:
Chrissyboy555 said:
It’s all very well you powerfully built know it all’s slagging him off. As though what you say is 100% correct lol I’d love to be that self confident .
However labour weren’t that far off getting into power with him when all said and done.
So he obviously had plenty of support.
Not here of course with ya flash cars and look at me aren’t I clever mentalities
Hahaha - you fHowever labour weren’t that far off getting into power with him when all said and done.
So he obviously had plenty of support.
Not here of course with ya flash cars and look at me aren’t I clever mentalities
kin what mate? How on Earth do you equate the biggest election defeat in Labour history (or close to it) and the loss of some of the strongest Labour constituencies, some of which have NEVER been anything but Labour, with "not far off getting into power"? You are utterly deluded, my friend. He was an unmitigated disaster for the party and would have been ruinous for the country. Kent Border Kenny said:
But that's how the system is designed, it takes a small edge in the vote and returns a larger swing in seats, it's a feature, not a bug.
The arguments that say that if you took them to a victory of 1 in each marginal seat can be played for any election, and you can always produce a big swing in either direction if you suppose that each marginal seat, starting at the most marginal, moved just enough to flip, but that doesn't say that the losing party was actually close to winning.
It's a feature of a system that should really be ended (2017 data, the 2019 data looks worse)The arguments that say that if you took them to a victory of 1 in each marginal seat can be played for any election, and you can always produce a big swing in either direction if you suppose that each marginal seat, starting at the most marginal, moved just enough to flip, but that doesn't say that the losing party was actually close to winning.
New Zealand went from a system like the UK's to one like the German model.
John145 said:
Careful what you wish for, imagine the government of 2015...:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Yes, but the vote share could be radically different in a system that didn't lend itself to tactical voting or wasted votes.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
MC Bodge said:
John145 said:
Careful what you wish for, imagine the government of 2015...:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Yes, but the vote share could be radically different in a system that didn't lend itself to tactical voting or wasted votes.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
That doesn't seem particularly democratic either.
MC Bodge said:
John145 said:
Careful what you wish for, imagine the government of 2015...:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Yes, but the vote share could be radically different in a system that didn't lend itself to tactical voting or wasted votes.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Kent Border Kenny said:
Disastrous said:
I see the gammon have been roused.
Yawn. Utter nonsense.
Ah, so anyone that calls you out for racism gets called a racist slur. Nice.Yawn. Utter nonsense.
What next, a bit of casual antisemitism which you’ll claim is really anti Israel?
A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
SpeckledJim said:
Haven't Belgium just created a PR government that doesn't include the two biggest parties? And their Prime Minister is from the seventh biggest party.
That doesn't seem particularly democratic either.
The votes are spread more evenly than here. That doesn't seem particularly democratic either.
Do you prefer UK/US single party dictatorship because you have always known it?
ATG said:
This assumption of symmetry between racial slurs applied to disadvantaged minorities and those applied to us in the majority white population is pretty silly. One does rather more harm than the other.
A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
Got you, so racist insults are fine if you are insulting anyone less intelligent? That seems a strange view you’re putting forward there honky, but if those are the rules then who am I to argue?A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
MC Bodge said:
SpeckledJim said:
Haven't Belgium just created a PR government that doesn't include the two biggest parties? And their Prime Minister is from the seventh biggest party.
That doesn't seem particularly democratic either.
The votes are spread more evenly than here. That doesn't seem particularly democratic either.
Do you prefer UK/US single party dictatorship because you have always known it?
Rather than being perpetually held to ransom by, for recent example, the lunatics of the DUP.
Does it sound reasonable that the two biggest parties don't take any part in governing the country?
ATG said:
Kent Border Kenny said:
Disastrous said:
I see the gammon have been roused.
Yawn. Utter nonsense.
Ah, so anyone that calls you out for racism gets called a racist slur. Nice.Yawn. Utter nonsense.
What next, a bit of casual antisemitism which you’ll claim is really anti Israel?
A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
ATG said:
This assumption of symmetry between racial slurs applied to disadvantaged minorities and those applied to us in the majority white population is pretty silly. One does rather more harm than the other.
A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
Then why not use the term Moron if that is the crux of the insult? A gammon is a middle aged male moron who likes feeling offended about stuff and feels the rest of the world is trying to get one over on him. You could choose to focus on that as being sexist. You could choose to imagine it is racist. But if you did so, you'd be missing the crux of the insult which is that you're being called a moron. And that would be moronic. Conclude from that what you will.
Why bring someone's gender or ethnicity into it? Why is it OK to stereotype because "white"?
It's not about levels of severity. It's about hypocrisy, and diluting the argument by throwing the term around.
For example, if someone said to me: "that's a moronic statement" then I might be inclined to engage in a discussion about it.
If someone says "You Gammon" then I will instantly decide that person is a bellend and lose any interest in engaging with them.
.......SpeckledJim said:
I think I prefer it because the most popular party gets to say what goes. In the main.
Rather than being perpetually held to ransom by, for recent example, the lunatics of the DUP.
Does it sound reasonable that the two biggest parties don't take any part in governing the country?
Belgium is an unusual country of two halves/ nations, with different lagunages, pushed together. Rather than being perpetually held to ransom by, for recent example, the lunatics of the DUP.
Does it sound reasonable that the two biggest parties don't take any part in governing the country?
Plenty of other countries manage it perfectly fine. None of the Eastern European countries adopted a UK style system after communism.
I'd prefer a system that wasn't winner takes all for the biggest minority. I suppose it seems fine if you are a Conservative supporter, or maybe not.
I'd prefer a system that reflected the interests of more people from more groups more of the time. Having only a choice of two large parties doesn't reflect many people's position.
MC Bodge said:
Belgium is an unusual country of two halves/ nations, with different lagunages, pushed together.
Plenty of other countries manage it perfectly fine. None of the Eastern European countries adopted a UK style system after communism.
I'd prefer a system that wasn't winner takes all for the biggest minority. I suppose it seems fine if you are a Conservative supporter, or maybe not.
I'd prefer a system that reflected the interests of more people from more groups more of the time. Having only a choice of two large parties doesn't reflect many people's position.
I didn’t really mind it when Labour were in charge either. My view is that it gives stability and effectiveness at the cost of a certain measure of “fairness.”Plenty of other countries manage it perfectly fine. None of the Eastern European countries adopted a UK style system after communism.
I'd prefer a system that wasn't winner takes all for the biggest minority. I suppose it seems fine if you are a Conservative supporter, or maybe not.
I'd prefer a system that reflected the interests of more people from more groups more of the time. Having only a choice of two large parties doesn't reflect many people's position.
It’s worth remembering that it’s not the Conservatives who were the biggest winners, or Labour the biggest losers in 2019 from FPTP, it was the SNP and UKIP respectively.
Kent Border Kenny said:
I didn’t really mind it when Labour were in charge either. My view is that it gives stability and effectiveness at the cost of a certain measure of “fairness.”
It’s worth remembering that it’s not the Conservatives who were the biggest winners, or Labour the biggest losers in 2019 from FPTP, it was the SNP and UKIP respectively.
The SNP punch too far above their weight at Westminster. The Tories do pretty well, due to the small number of Scots seats compared to the English.It’s worth remembering that it’s not the Conservatives who were the biggest winners, or Labour the biggest losers in 2019 from FPTP, it was the SNP and UKIP respectively.
I'd prefer a system more like that of other European nations.
MC Bodge said:
SpeckledJim said:
I think I prefer it because the most popular party gets to say what goes. In the main.
Rather than being perpetually held to ransom by, for recent example, the lunatics of the DUP.
Does it sound reasonable that the two biggest parties don't take any part in governing the country?
Belgium is an unusual country of two halves/ nations, with different lagunages, pushed together. Rather than being perpetually held to ransom by, for recent example, the lunatics of the DUP.
Does it sound reasonable that the two biggest parties don't take any part in governing the country?
Plenty of other countries manage it perfectly fine. None of the Eastern European countries adopted a UK style system after communism.
I'd prefer a system that wasn't winner takes all for the biggest minority. I suppose it seems fine if you are a Conservative supporter, or maybe not.
I'd prefer a system that reflected the interests of more people from more groups more of the time. Having only a choice of two large parties doesn't reflect many people's position.
Depending on how the numbers fall, PR can grant a huge amount of power to a small number of people with some very extreme views (from either side).
Granted, so can FPTP, as we saw recently, but that doesn't happen very frequently. The primacy of Tories and Labour isn't god-given. If another party was persuasive and competent and electable, in time it could displace one of the above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff