Why the Corbyn hatred?
Discussion
stitched said:
Crackie said:
MC Bodge said:
Some people like to look backwards 80 years, others like to look forward. The Germany of today was rebuilt after the dreadful events of the past.
Agreed but imho, care needs to be taken regarding the use of the word forward. Forward in time and beneficial progress don't always go hand in hand.For example, I think Brexit happened because they many in the UK did not consider the EU's long term plan going forward actually constituted progress.
I chose to vote out as there was insufficient oversight should things be decided against my wishes.
The point I was making was that 'forward thinking' has often been hijacked by self proclaimed 'progressives' who, more often than not, have zero evidence to support that their alternative policies constitute progress. It is a shrewd use of language but should be seen for what it is...........
MKnight702 said:
Personally I love Jeremy Corbyn, I think that he was the best thing to happen to the Labour Party in 25 years.
And I say that as a dyed in the wool Tory
.......
A mate was a Conservative association chairman and is still a Tory councillor. They had a massive push in their constituency amongst the Conservatives to become Labour members as well and vote for the most left wing candidate they could - Corbyn. They were sweating when it looked like Jeremy’s policies were appealing to some.And I say that as a dyed in the wool Tory
.......I would love to know who many other constituencies did this…?
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.
jakesmith said:
That depends on your attitude towards those who don’t vote. If they don’t care or don’t vote as the outcome looks likely one way or another, then why shouldn’t the largest minority get to form a decisive government able to make laws. There are many countries that don’t have FPTP that are a complete mess as a result with constant factions, temporary unstable coalitions etc.
It is typically the largest minority of those who voted. Those who don't vote don't count.For every unstable country with PR there are plenty of stable ones.
The UK, US and Australia are hardly poster boys for first past the post systems nowadays.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff