Daily briefing

[wilts rover]

  Never mind lads it won't be long before the  cavalry will come over the hill to save us led by boring old Starmer the working class millionaire or Sally Sally Long Bailey  singing the red flag now known as the losers anthem.

You are aware I take it Selby that Starmer is one of five children , his father was a toolmaker and his mother a nurse .

Most definitely didn't have a silver spoon in his mouth unlike the present PM .

I wouldn't concern yourself over Long - Bailey too much , Starmer will win by a mile .

Tyke - you do realise you are reply to a post by someone who voted for and continually supports an old Etonian millionaire who thinks working class men are drunk, feckless and criminal?

It's not the fact he is a millionaire that he sees as a problem - its that he is a millionaire who wants to help those who are not millionaires. Tories only support the rich, always have done, always will do. They reagard anyone with personal wealth who wants fairer economic distribution as a class traitor.

[SydneyRover]

Yep selby  :)stop using labour as a reason why vote tory, you vote tory cos you are one 

[selby]

  A new one Sydney, the labour Party I voted for from Wilson to this election no longer exists.

[SydneyRover]

One vote for the tories could be a genuine protest vote, two votes make you one 

[selby]

  I am there to be got on side again Sydney, but they have to get rid of a lot of dross MP's and change back to a proper labour party.

[drfchound]

One vote for the tories could be a genuine protest vote, two votes make you one 

He said he had voted Labour from Harold Wilson to this election so I make it one vote for the Tories, not two.

[SydneyRover]

Better confirm that with selby hound  just for balance

[SydneyRover]

  I am there to be got on side again Sydney, but they have to get rid of a lot of dross MP's and change back to a proper labour party.

I appreciate that selby but not voting for labour or voting for a party that keeps labour out benefits who?

[scawsby steve]

  I am there to be got on side again Sydney, but they have to get rid of a lot of dross MP's and change back to a proper labour party.

I appreciate that selby but not voting for labour or voting for a party that keeps labour out benefits who?

Brexit voters.

Why are you lot in such constant denial as to why your party took such a thrashing?

[SydneyRover]

Well done SS you're the first to mention brexit on this thread, have a look at some of the real questions put to our 'politicians' on this thread that they have refused to answer and actually lied about especially the sequence of events surrounding the negotiations to order ventilators, it's quite staggering.

Denied, then lied, there's a pattern that leads all the way back to johnson.

[i_ateallthepies]

  I am there to be got on side again Sydney, but they have to get rid of a lot of dross MP's and change back to a proper labour party.

'Labour has a lot of dross MPs, so I'll vote for a party with even more dross MPs and who have made the worst of them the their leaders'  f**k me drunk!

[Bentley Bullet]

Thing is Mr Pies, people don't take your opinion as gospel, they have their own opinions and vote accordingly. Unfortunately, for you, that's the reason why they have more 'dross MP's' than your party has!

[i_ateallthepies]

And your opinion BB is worth no more than mine.

[Bentley Bullet]

Precisely! and THAT'S why we have democratic elections where the party with the most votes gets elected.

[IDM]

Actually that’s not true in our democracy..  the party which wins rarely if ever gets over 50% of the votes due to the multi party system.

Most people who voted didn’t vote conservative. 

It is actually possible, although I don’t think it happened this time, for a party to win the election by getting the most seats, but actually getting fewer votes than the runner up, simply by getting small majorities in the seats they won, and whopping defeats in the ones they lost.

So no, your assertion isn’t correct.

[Bentley Bullet]

That's not what I said. I said the party with the most votes gets elected.

[IDM]

Still not an overall majority though..

Yes I was being pedantic to prove a point..

[Bentley Bullet]

 I said the party with the most votes gets elected. What point did you prove?

You said my assertion wasn't correct. Why wasn't it?

[IDM]

If they are say 35 million votes, and the party who wins gets 15 million, that means 20 million people didn’t vote for them.. they may have all voted for several different parties, but the winning one doesn’t have an absolute majority within the voting population.

That’s all..

If 10 people vote for 9 choices, potentially the winning choice can do that wit only 2 votes.. a simplistic example perhaps..

Anyway, you know exactly what I mean and I know you know.

It’s an argument in favour of proportional representation or a two way only vote.

[Bentley Bullet]

But you said my assertion wasn't correct. Why wasn't it?

[Hounslowrover]

BB in 1951 Labour won 48.8% of the vote, the Conservatives won most seats and formed the government, so your assertion can be wrong.

[Bentley Bullet]

I was referring to 2019, not 1951. IDM said my assertion that the party with the most votes won wasn't correct. It was.

[SydneyRover]

Please point to your post where you refered to the date of the election bb

[wilts rover]

Precisely! and THAT'S why we have democratic elections where the party with the most votes gets elected.

This above quote is untrue.

Cue Jamie Paterson style winding-up handle.....

[IDM]

I was referring to 2019, not 1951. IDM said my assertion that the party with the most votes won wasn't correct. It was.

Precisely! and THAT'S why we have democratic elections where the party with the most votes gets elected.

Which part of the second quote above referred to 2019, I could have sworn I read this as “democratic elections” ie a generalisation.??

I have no problem with disagreeing but you have just contradicted yourself to revise your original point after it had been challenged.. “I said X but actually meant Y” sort of thing..

Sorry but I ain’t a mind reader.. 

[NickDRFC]

To be fair IDM, the first thing you said in reply to BB was “ Actually that’s not true in our democracy..  the party which wins rarely if ever gets over 50% of the votes due to the multi party system.

Most people who voted didn’t vote conservative.“

Entirely true but not at all relevant to the point he made.

[SydneyRover]

yes but when dealing with bb - pendantic-r-us 

[Bentley Bullet]

Ok, if you want to be pedantic it's the party with the most seats that get elected. My point that we have democratic elections to decide that still stands. IDM's intervention was completely missing the point and his post was purely pedantic so as to find a way of disagreeing with my post. Just like the usual culprits who jumped on the bandwagon this morning, really!

[Hounslowrover]

The party with most seats obviously wins the elections, but not having the popular vote may not be as democratic as we would hope, hence the call for proportional representation so the vote can be represented in the make up of the government, especially with so many parties standing nowadays.

[IDM]

Hang on, BB’s point about votes was following some points about opinions, correct.?

He then made the point about our democracy, and I replied that his statement is inaccurate in that if you add up the votes for the other parties all together, that is almost always more than the winning party got.

My point was, and is, to illustrate the flaws in our democratic system, usually we get a government which maybe 60% of folks who voted didn’t actually want..

I’m not disputing how our system works just to argue with BB, simply pointing out a different perspective..

Also, going back to opinions, if our opinions of politicians change and we want a different government we can eventually vote them out, flawed system or not..

Interesting point, democracy allowing a further vote to change what isn’t working..