Sorry, that meant to say 'i'm not saying she is going to win'. It's still confusing though. Why not do it like us. You all go into a pot and whoever has the most wins?
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- 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
-
Sorry, that meant to say 'i'm not saying she is going to win'. It's still confusing though. Why not do it like us. You all go into a pot and whoever has the most wins?
I think this is a better system. FPTP is ****.
I wouldn't worry Col as the Tories will be kicking 'Comedy Corbyn' back behind the 'Iron Curtain". 'Wet Farron' will get stuffed as well. 'Maggie May' will win easily.
We should pay all debts up until we leave. If we have obligations beyond that we should also get the benefits as well.
Because France is a presidential republic, not a parliamentary democracy. The French will end up with a president that over 50% of those of them who voted chose. We will have a Prime Minister representing a party, even if it gets a massive majority, that will get nowhere near half of the voters supporting it. Even Labour with its 160 seat majority in 1945 got less than 48%.Sorry, that meant to say 'i'm not saying she is going to win'. It's still confusing though. Why not do it like us. You all go into a pot and whoever has the most wins?
The only reliable commentator on politics, I will be following his output with interest over the coming weeks....
You must log in or register to see media
but if we had to have a second round with only two choices then we would also get a party that over 50% chose
Not advocating it for us, it works for a run off between individuals for president, not a parliamentary system. If we had something that represented voters a little more accurately than first past the post it would be nice, but the Lib Dems ****ed that up with the stupid hybrid system they proposed at the referendum a few years ago, that even I couldn't vote for.
If they went from the first round they would have a president that 23.9% voted for. Sure, many of them won't get their first choice, but at least they get to vote for who they see as the least bad between the final two.
But it's France so clearly everything they do must be wrong.
Don't care which country it is
Less than 30 percent want either person as leader
Don't see that system of voting to be better than first past the post
Well we see things differently. I wouldn't vote for either May or Corbyn but would like the option to select my least worst candidate if we had a presidential system (terrifyingly May would get the X).
There are plenty of threats, veiled and otherwise, from these two. Here's one from Mr Juncker in March:
“They [the rest of the EU] will all see from Britain’s example that leaving the EU is a bad idea.”
It goes beyond the honouring of obligations. He was clearly wanting to create a deterrent for other EU states. Since March however, Junckers has taken a step back because hostile negotiations will obviously be counterproductive for both sides.
The Greens got eliminated as soon as they announced they'd seek a coalition with Corbyn.
UKIP have not announced they are homophobic so far as I know. As far as my concern for gays is concerned, I simply don't care what any consenting adults do within the privacy of their own homes if it doesn't break the law. It has **** all to do with me. But apparently it does matter to the Lib Dems that you'll be voting for Stan, because Farron's religious beliefs lead him to believe that gay practices are akin to devil worship. This from a so called liberal! And he want to rerun the Brexit referendum - this from a so-called Democrat! It beggers belief...
...and the French travellers walk past with barely a glance. It's just another mad Englishman...
All votes are a compromise, Farron cretinous religious beliefs have not impacted his liberal voting record, which is of course hypocritical of him. I fail to see what is undemocratic about wanting to hold a referendum on the negotiated deal.
We entered the Common Market with one referendum. There were no subsequent referendums on terms. Before the Brexit vote, there was no talk of a second referendum, and leaders of both IN and OUT stressed that leaving would also mean leaving membership of the Single Market.
Farron is shamelessly illiberal and undemocratic, but he'll pick up some Remoaner votes. He's desperate to increase his 8 MP's.
The terms of entrance, or to be accurate remaining, in the Common Market were clear at the time of the 1975 referendum. I was too young to vote but old enough and interested enough to follow the debate. We should have had another referendum when the Common Market morphed into the European Union about the time of Maastricht.
So, having applied the filter further, you will be voting UKIP. For your info they offer 'legal protection' whatever that means, to Christians (but not other religious groups) who object to gay marriage in 2015, although to be fair they changed their policy, which had been anti gay marriage to one of 'not opposing' at the same time.
No, I filtered out UKIP because I don't know what they're for, and worse, I don't think they do. The Brexit negotiations are critically important to the future of this country. We are into adversarial negotiations with past colleagues, who hopefully, will be good neighbours for decades to come, and we with them. But for now, it's eyeball to eyeball. I can't fault May's approach and increasingly I like David Davis who's a tough s.o.b. while remaining good humoured. That's the right pitch.
I have big problems with Farron and the Lib Dems because, at the risk of repeating myself, by offering another referendum, this one on the deal, it encourages the EU to give us the poorest deal possible, in the hope that the Brits reject it and climb back into the fold. It's not going to happen. We cannot go backwards.
I've written this before, but here it is again.
Farrons record for supporting gay rights is exemplary. Whatever his personal views are, he is a Liberal. Liberals don't insist that everyone else has to follow the same lifestyle as them. That's the point. I don't hold religious views but I respect the right of others to do so. How a person acts is the issue, not what they believe or think.
Authoritarians, on the other hand, demonise anybody who does something they don't agree with with and try to enforce them to "behave properly like decent people".