Strokes Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 No of course they won't, because they can do no wrong in people like yours eyes. People criticise politicians all the time for being out of touch, but to be quite honest I couldn't give a **** if Cameron has to lie about his favourite band in a bid to sound cool, but I do expect people who hope to hold some power and influence, (and have some say on foreign policy) to have basic general knowledge, including geography. And knowing Ukraine is in Europe is basic geography , your getting upset because someone who isn't an MP wasn't aware that Ukraine is in Europe. I haven't heard what she said or in what context but I wonder if she meant isn't in the EU. Its just an irrelevant dig if you ask me, I'm not sure quite what response you expected from it.You are wrong that they can do no wrong in my eyes, its just that the wrong that they do doesn't matter to me, I very much doubt you could possibly understand.
Strokes Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Being thick shows she's in touch with half their voters. On the Daily Politics the other day, there was a guy selling the big issue saying everyone should vote UKIPIts not just half of ukip voters that are thick, its half the electorate. Education! Education! Education!
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Europe isn't really a continent anyway, just a peninsula of Asia. It's Eurasia in reality.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 And I don't think she genuinely doesn't believe Ukraine is in Europe.
SMX11 Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Who really gives a shit? You are arguing over a non-issue. You can see why Putin got pissed over Ukraine as the EU plucked it from its sphere of influence. Clearly a lot of Ukranians still connect with Russia, as such I cannot see a swift end to this saga.
bovril Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 I agree with a lot of the above that the problem isn't politicians it's the voting public. People either don't know or don't care about the major issues. So with our electoral system parties only need to mobilise a certain group of people to vote for them on a very narrow range of issues and they've won the seat. It's the same in every democracy.
leicsmac Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 I agree with a lot of the above that the problem isn't politicians it's the voting public. People either don't know or don't care about the major issues. So with our electoral system parties only need to mobilise a certain group of people to vote for them on a very narrow range of issues and they've won the seat. It's the same in every democracy. Not the same with those countries that use a proportional representation system. That way more votes do end up mattering. Definitely agree however that the voting public is distinctly apathetic...you get the Governments you deserve because of it though.
l444ry Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Haha. Nice to see the Green Party overtake UKIP in latest England only figures. Here's hoping that the quasi-Fascist bubble has burst. https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/feb2015web_VI_THR_FINAL.pdf
bovril Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Not the same with those countries that use a proportional representation system. That way more votes do end up mattering. Definitely agree however that the voting public is distinctly apathetic...you get the Governments you deserve because of it though. Yeah I meant more that it's the same in every democracy that people are concerned with a very narrow range of issues and vote accordingly. The problem in countries with PR is that a nutjob party only needs a small amount of people to come out and vote for it (say 4% of the country that are racist loons) and you get nutjobs in the parliament.
Alf Bentley Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 The problem in countries with PR is that a nutjob party only needs a small amount of people to come out and vote for it (say 4% of the country that are racist loons) and you get nutjobs in the parliament. Depends on the specific PR system used. What you say is true of national list systems of PR (a bad idea), but not of PR systems based on multi-member constituencies, particularly those using STV (single transferable vote). If, say, Leicestershire was electing 9 MPs by PR as a multi-member constituency, a party would have to win about 10% of the vote across Leicestershire to get 1 MP elected. The 2009 Euro elections were an example of this: the BNP got 2 MEPs elected, but only because they won 8%-9% of the vote across the West Midlands and North-West. The BNP won 6.3% of the votes overall but got no MPs elected elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28United_Kingdom%29 In the 1983 general election, under First Past the Post, the SDP stood in half of all constituencies nationwide and won about 23% of the vote where it stood (their Liberal allies stood in the other half and won slightly more)...but only got 6 MPs elected. Meanwhile, Labour won 27.3% of the vote and got 209 MPs elected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983 Something similar could potentially happen in 2015. UKIP is currently polling 15%+, but most informed pundits - and bookies - think that this would probably only win them 5-10 MPs at best, out of the 650 available. It's quite conceivable that they could surge to 20%+ and get only a handful of MPs, unless their support is concentrated in particular areas. Imagine the uproar if that happens and the new government declines to hold an EU referendum. I don't want UKIP to do well, never mind nutjobs like the BNP, and the electoral system should certainly prevent extremists from exercising disproportionate power with a tiny vote. But if a party is getting 10%+ of the vote, it should be properly represented or it undermines the validity of the democratic system. If that is a racist nutjob party like the BNP, then it shouldn't be excluded from parliament, it should be opposed by other means (campaigning, pressure on mainstream parties not to co-operate with it etc.). There are other means of achieving a more proportional result, while preventing excessive influence by tiny groups. Germany operates a mixed constituency/PR system, but a party has to either win 3 constituencies outright or achieve 5% of the national vote before it gets any seats based on PR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Voting_system
leicsmac Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Yeah I meant more that it's the same in every democracy that people are concerned with a very narrow range of issues and vote accordingly. The problem in countries with PR is that a nutjob party only needs a small amount of people to come out and vote for it (say 4% of the country that are racist loons) and you get nutjobs in the parliament. I agree, but I'd take that over a vast swathe of people essentially being marginalised as they are in a 'safe seat'. As always (apart from theoretical astrophysics or spacecraft engineering possibly), Alf has made the point above far more eloquently than I ever could.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Haha. Nice to see the Green Party overtake UKIP in latest England only figures. Here's hoping that the quasi-Fascist bubble has burst. https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/feb2015web_VI_THR_FINAL.pdf The Greens are far bigger fascists than UKIP and twice as extreme.Although the good thing looking at that is it appears Miliband is dying, no one who isn't hardcore Labour is voting for him.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Yeah I meant more that it's the same in every democracy that people are concerned with a very narrow range of issues and vote accordingly. The problem in countries with PR is that a nutjob party only needs a small amount of people to come out and vote for it (say 4% of the country that are racist loons) and you get nutjobs in the parliament. That's democracy mate. Sometimes you don't like who is elected. If we had PR I get the feeling governments would actually try and tackle the issues that cause people to vote for extreme parties.
ADK Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 One thing with FTP is it gives a lot of power to the nationalist parties. How much of the national vote will the SNP get? Anyone living in Scotland is likely to find they have basically no say on who the government in Westminster is as the election is hijacked by separatists.
l444ry Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 The Greens are far bigger fascists than UKIP and twice as extreme. Although the good thing looking at that is it appears Miliband is dying, no one who isn't hardcore Labour is voting for him. More cheery news for Labour today. Poll lead increases..... https://twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/566251106259722240/photo/1
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 More cheery news for Labour today. Poll lead increases..... https://twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/566251106259722240/photo/1 Amazing stuff mate. You are cruising to power Honestly, was looking at some polls from 2012 earlier, you were on 42-43% in England and Scotland. Now you're 10-15% lower in both. In hindsight how on earth have the chuckle brothers kept their jobs? The fact they have now probably shows that this Labour party is too incompetent to run the country. At least the Tories shunted IDS when it got embarrassing. (As an aside, a brilliant thing to post just hours after you claim the Greens have overtook UKIP in a different poll lol)
l444ry Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Amazing stuff mate. You are cruising to power Honestly, was looking at some polls from 2012 earlier, you were on 42-43% in England and Scotland. Now you're 10-15% lower in both. In hindsight how on earth have the chuckle brothers kept their jobs? The fact they have now probably shows that this Labour party is too incompetent to run the country. At least the Tories shunted IDS when it got embarrassing. (As an aside, a brilliant thing to post just hours after you claim the Greens have overtook UKIP in a different poll lol) Tut,tut! Only pointing out a few inaccuracies you liberally spout out without challenge to your kid followers for Brownie points.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Kid followers? That's ironic for a Greville Janner fan.
l444ry Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Kid followers? That's ironic for a Greville Janner fan. Very sad Matt. Making things up again? Below the belt, completely untrue comment and despicable. Hope you dwell on what you have posted as others will have noticed, that, again, your comments that do not pertain directly to the discussion topic.
bovril Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 I'm pretty sure you can't use "pertain" in that way.
Strokes Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 I'm pretty sure you can't use "pertain" in that way.L444ry can, he pertains when he wants.
bovril Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Pertains when he wants, Pertains when he wants, L-four-four-four-ry, Pertains when he wants.
l444ry Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 That'll teach me to mix Matt and the hero of Verdun up.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 Very sad Matt. Making things up again? Below the belt, completely untrue comment and despicable. Hope you dwell on what you have posted and realise that was not becoming of someone who pertains to being taken seriously. I'll be thinking about it all weekend while I pertain to be taken seriously. Below the belt. Too easy.
Mark_w Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 The Greens are far bigger fascists than UKIP How would you define fascism Matt?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.