I think it's because he lives in the UK but pretends to live in Texas because he's terrified at the thought of his benefits being cut by the Tories.
General Election
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I think it's because he lives in the UK but pretends to live in Texas because he's terrified at the thought of his benefits being cut by the Tories.
After the last pair of ****ers who ran the labour party there's no ****ing wonder they didn't get voted in.
Blair makes Allam seem almost honest oh!!!!
hang on I think I may have gone too far there.
Blair makes Allam seem almost honest oh!!!!
hang on I think I may have gone too far there.
!
If they were Scottish elections, then he'd have a point, but they're UK elections and they've got 55 seats in the UK parliament, with very few votes. The Scottish MP's influence over the rest of the UK is ridiculously disproportionate, though at least they're about to be stopped from voting on issues that don't affect them.
"50% of 70% isn't a majority of those eligible to vote" you wrote. David Cameron won a majority of seats but came nowhere near a majority of those eligible to vote. His vote is just as legitimate as the SNPs under our system.
No it isn't as our system is based on the number of seats you win. Of course if we had PR UKIP would have more seats than the LibDems and SNP combined.
I can't remember. Did you hold forth on the illegitimacy of Labour's win in 2005 when they got less of the vote than Cameron has?
The system isn't designed for the modern age of multi party politics, it's a 2 party election system, it's out dated and unfair.
Your postcode shouldn't dictate how you are forced to vote as a 'tactic'.
But seeing as turkeys don't vote for Christmas it'll seemingly never end.
I agree, and like I said, doesn't make it right, but adding the extra bit of detail gives an understanding about why it happens. I also don't think we should be too concerned about their power, they're still relatively small and no larger than the lib dems as the 3rd party historically and like you say, their voting on English / Welsh matters will soon be gone
No, nor the Tories win in 1951.
I'm not saying his vote is illegitimate. I'm saying Cameron's seats are just as valid as the SNPs. The only difference is the Tories stood in more seats and therefore won more.
If you don't want the Scots to have a say in the UK parliament then you give them independence. If you want a United Kingdom then you accept that the SNP could hold the balance of power.
There is no perfect political system, except, of course, the constitution of the USSR and look how well that worked in practice.
If you want a hung parliament, that's the one to go for. Putin suggests he's well hung and that all of his opponents should be too.
He lives in a little village and he's trying to become their resident idiot.
Should be a doddle for him.
The 1951 was an odd one. Though the Tories won more seats. And that was the deciding factor under our system, not the share of the vote. Of course no one has ever got over 50% of the vote. So you can get more seats some years with less votes than another. A lot depends on how many voted for the third party if you look at the votes and percentages back in the forties and fifties.
I assume the thing about the USSR was your little joke. Though they did hold an election in the 1920s but didn't get the results they expected so they didn't repeat the mistake of offering people a choice. Maybe Cameron should draw up a similar perfect constitution and have only one party you can vote for?
I can press a button and my IP address could be in the USA, Germany, Japan, Korea or any number of places.
- Status