Out of interest, is anyone in favour of the current electoral system?
Everyone I talk to thinks its ridiculous because it's basically as you've described. I'd be interested to hear an argument for keeping it.
Off Topic General Election Special
- 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
Out of interest, is anyone in favour of the current electoral system?
Everyone I talk to thinks its ridiculous because it's basically as you've described. I'd be interested to hear an argument for keeping it.
It's not bollocks in the slightest. The majority party can have a different leader (ergo PM) and Home Secretary every single week if they want. The fact that people don't understand this when voting doesn't make it bollocks.
Did people who 'voted' for Blair or Cameron get to cast their vote again when they stood down mid parliament?
Abbott has now retired hurt.
She'll still win her seat by a landslide but I expect she'll announce taking a step back from frontline politics due to ill health.
She'll still win her seat by a landslide but I expect she'll announce taking a step back from frontline politics due to ill health.
They do understand it, they just don't care, ar far as they're concerned, they're voting in a government, not a specific MP.
I can't vote Labour because Corbyn refuses to say whether or not he'd nuke Iran, and refusing to kill millions of innocent people in the Middle East is un-British.
Ah right so you agree with a policy that's for the few, not the many, those same few that you hate, which punishes the many for the actions of the few?
You're an idiot mate.
It's clearly for the many. It taxes the very, very few to make money for the many. Absurd to try and make it look any other way.
Obviously if it was a strong and stable policy that'd be much better eh?
But they're wrong. This isn't America and it's not how our system works.
And I disagree that they know. I've heard many many people say after voting "why wasn't XX's name on there? I didn't understand how to vote".
It's a stupid system. It worked well when communications took days and weeks to move across the country on horse back. Nowadays anyone could vote on a policy or whatever instantly from wherever they are. The people should get to decide what they want rather than being stuck with some elitist pigs deceptions for four years at a time.
If they're a party member then yes.
But obviously two completely different things at work here.
Yeah, the 180 or so countries that don't have nukes at all are nuclear wastelands right now.
You have no concept of business whatsoever do you. Any increase in costs will be passed on to the customer and the employees. You'll be sat there sniggering at getting one over the 0.1% whilst you pay their bill for them
That's fine. It's not about me. Like you said I'm in an office job and I'm alright. It's about all the things the country says it can't afford, but could if the rich contributed more. The NHS is on its knees and that's desperately sad. I'd love to see the nationalisation of ****ed up industries like rail and energy. Energy companies are some of the most pointless leeches around. But we're told we can't afford to do anything about it. Labour say they've got a way to do it so I'm all for it.
- Status