Another day another blunder for Chuka's Chickens, with the Electoral Commission rejecting their choice of logo on the basis that it appears that the not-a-political-party don't even know what their name is so how the hell would voters? please log in to view this image ...either that or the Electoral Commission are aware that allowing them to call themselves "Change" would make them complicit in a lie, considering all we've heard from them is their wanting to maintain the current status quo, be it Anna Soubry repeatedly saying how marvelous austerity is while all eleven of them voted down every single Britait amendment in parliament to keep the main options available as No Deal or the Dire Leader's deal
Well there is how the BBC had a story about Arron Banks recruiting the BNP and English Defence League for the Leave campaign, only for the story to be spiked by then-political editor (and now director of communications at Downing Street) Robbie Gibb... Best lead with a cathedral that was on fire two days ago...
Oh dear, poor Chukka & Co: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...4/17/brexit-party-leading-eu-parliament-polls
1. Those lot are an irrelevance, and it doesn't affect them (not a by-election) . 2. A vote for Farage is a waste. If anyone wants to vent their anger at the handling of leaving the EU by the current Parliament (and the underlying political parties) at any of the local/Euro elections, UKIP is the better weapon.
Putting aside how YouGov is to polling what TeamTalk is to transfer rumours, are people really so blind they can't see the whole purpose of the party is so Nigel Farage can keep picking up his MEP's salary and then not bother turning up unless he's got to film something for his Youtube channel - where he usually ****s off out of the chamber as soon as he's finished speaking?
Have to laugh. My post was pointing out how poorly CHUK are doing in the opinion polls (contrary to what Soubry and co keep telling us about how we need a new party to represent them) yet immediately, the instant reaction is to jump all over the Brexit Party.
I don't even get who CHUK are trying to target. They don't seem to have any real draw. I suspect that it will be a short-term thing and they'll meld back into their old parties or just disappear completely.
They're basically trying to appeal to the FBPE mob, but that's bound to fail for a variety of reasons i.) While the FBPE mob have lionised Anna Soubry for the past couple of years, they don't give a **** about the rest of the parliamentary squatters ii.) The FBPE mob are hardly behind one party as it is, as they're split between the Lib Dems and Greens and making their support base increasingly toxic as a result iii.) The Independent Hashtag Group Ltd are in the same bloc as various fringe far-right groups in the European elections, so in other words voting for them in is a vote for antisemitism - which I'm sure Ian Austin has been quick to mention to anyone who will listen... iv.) It really hasn't occurred to any of them that people the reason they became an MP in a safe seat has absolutely nothing to do with them and everything to do with the party whose rosette they happened to be wearing, which also happens to be the reason why Joan Ryan, Gavin Shuker, Chris Leslie and Luciana Berger all faced (and, Berger aside, lost) No Confidence votes from their local parties because they were acting like careerist twats v.) It really doesn't help that Chuka Umunna keeps attending meetings for party leaders when he isn't their leader, Heidi "funny tinge" Allen is while he's listed as party spokesman, which just makes the whole thing look like his own personal ego trip
Using a rifle make a lethal wound far more likely than, say, a handgun or shotgun Worst case scenario in case all five miss, somebody uses a pistol to perform a coup de grace
Oh yeah, Mr Umunna has a very high opinion of himself and no doubt sees himself as a future PM in the mould of a Barack Obama and Tony Blair love child. I can't think of many less sanctimonious MP's than him. The only thing I can agree with him on is moving towards a PR based voting system (although I suspect he only wants that to give his failing side project a chance of winning a few seats). Other than that... meh.
The issue with proportional representation is it's a system that can be gamed. For example, in Denmark the Social Democrats are usually the party that gets the most votes - yet they rarely ever form a government because the other parties form coalitions to keep them out. For example, in the current parliament the Social Democrats have the most seats with 46 yet the government is a coalition of the Liberal Party (34), Liberal Alliance (13) and Conservative People's Party (13) - and in case anyone was confused, in Denmark the "Liberal" parties are centre-right That's the risk with proportional representation: imagine if Labour won the most seats, but the Tories did deals with the Lib Dems (again...), the DUP (again...) and Chukka's Chickens to reach a majority, that's less about democracy and more about craving power at any cost (again...)
That's the issue, having PR and just PR is prone to having the system abused like in Denmark (or, for that matter, in Germany where the Greens essentially existed for several years to be compliant alliance partners for Angela Merkel), so there needs to be some kind of safeguard to prevent parties stitching up a coalition before a vote is even cast, because the most ridiculous thing with the current Danish parliament is its government is being led by the party with the third-highest number of seats
Depends how you think about it. If you're saying PR in the Denmark case conspired to keep out the winning party then it's only winning in terms of the old system where the biggest party by seats tends to form the government. But in Denmark a coalition with more seats is actually the winner as they have a bigger consensus. Can't see much wrong with that if people act reasonably about it. We have become too comfortable in this country with governments with the most seats governing but in fact representing a minority of people. Rarely does a government poll more than 40% of the votes, there's always more people that voted against it. It's democracy, but only in terms of the system in place. In absolute terms it's undemocratic.
The issue is it's a long-standing issue: the Social Democrats routinely get the highest number of votes, but the Liberal party always find a way to stitch up the system to get themselves into government with the usual coalition partners, and that's farcical because that's the same level as the Dire Leader bunging the DUP £1bn to stay in power as that's far more important than anything else It says a lot that the only real way to prevent this happening at the moment is hubris on the part of one of those parties, as Private Eye noted back in 2013... It was, most agreed, a fantastic night for Angela Merkel. Chancellor since 2005, her Christian Democratic Union romped home in the general election, almost defying the logic of a system calibrated to deliver coalition to win an overall majority. But only almost: it may be now she snatches defeat from what had seemed the jaws of a famous victory. (...) The CDU's success - more than 40 percent of the vote - was Mrs Merkel's award for showing the profligate southern Europeans and Irish that they had to foot the bill for the rapacious and reckless lending from German banks to their countries, and not expect a Euro from the German people in return. But her apparent triumph was preceded by extraordinary tactical error that could see "Mutti" dumped from office. In the past Merkel supporters used the electoral system to cast their primary ballots for constituency MPs to CDU candidates, but gave their proportional vote to the Liberals to ensure their preservation as a pliant coalition partner, a practice known as vote splitting. In this election Merkel, apparently confident she could sweep all before her, asked her supporters to abstain from this. This they did with German thoroughness and the Liberals, having jettisoned their liberal credentials in the past 20 years and infamous for their brazen venality, now have no seats at all. Thus Merkel, despite her popularity, is struggling for coalition partners. The Social Democrats have hardly any political differences with Merkel. Peer Steinbrück, the party leader and typical of many in the old guard who became millionaires under the last grand coalition, has decided to step down, confident that big business will reward him if he can deliver the Social Democrats into a new grand coalition. But younger party apparatchiks with an eye on the next election are more reticent, after the decision to join Merkel's last administration cost the party a third of its vote. Many among the Greens' curiously conformist nomenclatura might also be more than amiable to signing up with Mrs M. Alas, in this latest election the conservative voters who had flocked to the Greens after the 2011 disaster at Fukushima in Japan all pretty much returned to their political homeland and voted for Merkel. This means the Greens' remaining loyal voters believe that the party should adhere to its leftist origins. Party managers know if they join a CDU-led coalition it could spell the end for them. Merkel's fixers continue to press for a deal that would help prevent conservative German's political nightmare: a coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and leftists who say they are committed to pension reform, a fair tax system, a revamp of the health insurance programme and all the other centre-left goals. The challenge is scarcely a less grim prospect for the progressives: it's one thing to trumpet for years the rhetoric of social justice from the sidelines - but quite another to deliver it.
