Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on June 17, 2022, 05:30:52 pm
-
Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521
It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...
Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.
Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.
Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?
-
Still can't see it BST, both main parties have had many opportunities to go down this road but always ducked it at the last moment. I could well imagine that they could both split 2 to 4 ways in a PR system, with them both being such broad churches as things stand.
I can just see some awful outcomes now, a centre coalition having to rely on some extremists to propel them into power.
Id rather we had a government who could initiate their policies without having some washed down versions to contend with just to please some small minority who would hold a lager rump to ransom and extract far more than their manifesto deserved.
We've seen it in so many European countries' it would be a GE every six month in the worst cases or really weak and ineffective government that no one wanted or voted for.
-
You can see why the Lib Dems want it, it would be huge for them, it's hard to know what it would mean accross politics though, potentially a bigger voice for the minority parties. Good and bad points to that isn't there?
-
The unions block Labour support of PR because it would marginalise their influence. But Labour will grow closer to supporting it because without it we now have either a one party democracy, or, a left leaning pact. That's the stark reality for left leaning folk in this country today. Support either PR or pacts, or face a lifetime of meaningless, pointless gesturing in opposition. Billy is right. Anyone who votes for any third party in any seat where Lab/Conservative is the real choice is voting for a Conservative MP. The same principle applied in reverse to the Tory Party when UKIP was splitting the Tory vote.
BobG
-
The Tories will never ever support PR because there has almost never in the past 50 years been a centre and right majority in the country. They have almost always dominated the right wing vote, so they are all but guaranteed 35-45% of the vote. And while the centre and left vote is split between Lab, LD, SNP, Green and PC, 40% of the vote is usually enough to give the Tories a majority in the Commons.
FPTP can only ever be justified democratically if the vast majority of seats have the vast majority of votes only going to two parties, like they did for most of history until the mid 1970s. With multiple parties competing and polling well in most seats as they do these days, FPTP is deeply undemocratic and should be got rid of if we truly want to be a representative democracy.
-
It's more than simple PR though. Most PR systems give relatively small areas several MPs, which plays to the idea of locally based MPs but still maintains the major Parties in control.
I think it's better to scrap that idea and allocate on a nationwide basis. Parties would then delegate MPs locally. And, to give more say locally, local councils should be given much much more power. That's where "local" matters.
Yes, this would mean BNP or the Communist Party could have MPs, but so be it. Marginals representation is democracy.
More important tho than any of this is to ban donations by anyone for parties. That is so undemocratic and corrupt. . The party funding should come from a central fund based on popularity of a party.
-
Hear hear. Hear bloody hear BRR!!!
And no sodding outside jobs either. Pay MPs a million a year. But no outside jobs and no job at all for 2 years after leaving politics. If they get paid enough as MPs that would be no hardship.
BobG
-
It's more than simple PR though. Most PR systems give relatively small areas several MPs, which plays to the idea of locally based MPs but still maintains the major Parties in control.
I think it's better to scrap that idea and allocate on a nationwide basis. Parties would then delegate MPs locally. And, to give more say locally, local councils should be given much much more power. That's where "local" matters.
Yes, this would mean BNP or the Communist Party could have MPs, but so be it. Marginals representation is democracy.
More important tho than any of this is to ban donations by anyone for parties. That is so undemocratic and corrupt. . The party funding should come from a central fund based on popularity of a party.
Two things I'd have a problem with with that.
Firstly, the electorate would have no say about whoever represents them, they would be imposed on them instead.
Secondly, they would not be able to get rid of any MP that they don't want.
-
Yep, a problem when it gets to simply voting for parties nationwide. In the Euro elections we had a list you could pick from. In a similar way it could be we get several votes to give to choices in a region. Democracy eh!
-
Glyn
That's a very second order problem compared to the issue of many MPs getting elected on 35-40% of the vote in multi-candidate constituencies.
-
But it could also see someone with a low percentage of the vote representing an area and that doesn't feel right either?
I'm not actually sure there is a perfect solution and I also don't have much taste for the current structure either. My vote is essentially meaningless as an octopus would get in for labour here.
-
Glyn
That's a very second order problem compared to the issue of many MPs getting elected on 35-40% of the vote in multi-candidate constituencies.
To you it's a second order problem, to me Party Lists are very much a first order problem.
No way does this country deserve to be stuck with a cartload of Nadine Dorries that nobody anywhere in the whole electorate can unseat.
I'd go for Single Transferable Vote as used in Scottish Local Government elections currently:
https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info/200237/elections/761/previous_election_and_referenda_results/3
It keeps the representative/constituent relationship; the vote is for a candidate not a party; the winner has to get a majority preference of the electorate; and it is tried and tested with British voters so no-one can come up with the condescending old chestnut of it'd be too complicated for them.
-
Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521
It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...
Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.
Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.
Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?
Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .
However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .
Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?
Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .
-
Presumably if an MP on a party list dies, someone else will suddenly be anointed as an MP without anything being put to the electorate.
No-one will convince me that that is in any way democratic.
-
Hear hear. Hear bloody hear BRR!!!
And no sodding outside jobs either. Pay MPs a million a year. But no outside jobs and no job at all for 2 years after leaving politics. If they get paid enough as MPs that would be no hardship.
BobG
Pay those f*cking clowns a million pounds a year? For spending half their time on the Westminster veranda p*ssing it up?
Yeah right.
-
Whatever system is in place for next general election I won’t be voting Labour after Tony Blair sold the country down the river. Feel free to slag me off but I shall stick to my opinion/view
-
Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521
It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...
Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.
Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.
Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?
Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .
However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .
Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?
Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .
Tyke.
It's about Conference votes.
Last year there was a vote at Labour's Conference demanding that PR be in the next Labour manifesto.
85% of individual members voted for it. 95% of union votes went against it.
The motion was defeated.
It's got nothing to do with Starmer's opinion of unions. It's about Labour party democracy.
I'll say again, the only thing holding Labour back from embracing PR is the half century out of date attitude of the unions. If they change their stance, PR will become party policy.
-
I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.
I'm not sure that thinking would manifest itself if we happened to introduce some sort of PR system.The party lineup could be as wide as the Atlantic with many a subtle change and alteration in differing parties thinking and policies, remember a great many people could be socially liberal but economically conservative and vice versa, no one size will fit all and the electorate will be very aware of this.
No one i know has ever voted in a manner to want to produce a coalition government. The voting populace are rather more sophisticated than people give them credit for(the ones who actually vote)they would not play along with certain party lines or supposedly political associations just because certain parties believe their focus groups have told them.They would see through this type of horseplay and still vote to their own personal requirements, wherever the constituency they happened to vote in and would not see it as a wasted vote but that they'd had their 10p's worth of democracy.
Also like others have stated, nobody wants a political party to impose certain individuals on them picked off lists, they want individuals they can relate to, hold accountable and if it pleases get rid, to me that all sounds like that shower we only just managed to extricate ourselves from.
When someone tells you they know whats good for you personally is the time when your ears prick up and you want to see and hear some sort of accountability from them. There's no golden bullet here, all types of governance have their pros and cons.
-
Strengthening democracy and individuals' democratic rights has been a positive for all peoples throughout history.
There is an echo from the past when opponents to PR say it may lead to bad outcomes. It mirrors what establishment figures said when arguing against increasing the franchise historically - the poor can't be trusted with the vote; women can't be trusted with the vote.
I.e. People are too stupid and can't be trusted to make the right decision. This is essentially an argument against democracy. History has shown that both those historic and current naysayers are wrong.
Democracy isn't perfect but it is by far the best (as well as fairest) form of Government ever tried. We should always be looking to strengthen our democracy and never be to afraid to do this.
Full PR in the HoC and a fully elected HoL on a constituency basis, so people still have a local elected representative to take their grievances too, would be my choice.
-
Big news here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Labour4PR/status/1537799364109803521
It's only the unions that have been stopping Labour fully embracing PR. If that opposition is crumbling...
Tyke. Really serious point here. I stand by every word that I said recently on the theme that with the CURRENT system, anyone from the Left who doesn't vote Labour in a Tory Vs Labour constituency contest is effectively supporting the Tories. You called that "tribalism". It's not, it's just the only logic available in the FPTP system. It's a rotten system, but it's what we have. And in that system, if either side of the spectrum isn't united in voting for one party, they get crushed. Indulging your conscience and voting for a party with no chance of winning the seat is just that. An indulgence.
Personally, I'd be delighted for you and everyone else to vote for whoever you want AND that vote count every time. You need PR for that. The only realistic way we are getting Or anytime soon is a Lab/LD coalition after the next election.
Would you vote for that outcome, in order to get a system in future where you could really vote how you wanted?
Those unions who are opposing PR are completely wrong to do so in my opinion .
However I don't completely buy that it's the union's who are holding Labour back .
Since when did Keith care about trade unions and the left ?
Seems a bit convenient to me but I'm happy to be proved wrong .
Tyke.
It's about Conference votes.
Last year there was a vote at Labour's Conference demanding that PR be in the next Labour manifesto.
85% of individual members voted for it. 95% of union votes went against it.
The motion was defeated.
It's got nothing to do with Starmer's opinion of unions. It's about Labour party democracy.
I'll say again, the only thing holding Labour back from embracing PR is the half century out of date attitude of the unions. If they change their stance, PR will become party policy.
Fair do's .
-
''‘Huge boost’: UNISON vote to back proportional representation
“UNISON members want a proportional system that properly reflects the voice of working people."''
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/huge-boost-unison-vote-to-back-proportional-representation-326706/?utm_medium=referral&
Apologies if this has already been posted
-
''‘Huge boost’: UNISON vote to back proportional representation
“UNISON members want a proportional system that properly reflects the voice of working people."''
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/huge-boost-unison-vote-to-back-proportional-representation-326706/?utm_medium=referral&
Apologies if this has already been posted
This from the Guardian in May 2021:
“At Labour’s annual conference this week, a motion is to be put forward calling for the party to back proportional representation (PR) for the election of MPs to the House of Commons.
There are many philosophical arguments that can be made against PR. PR makes coalition governments the norm rather than the exception. It reduces the ability of a party to deliver on its manifesto promises. It gives disproportionate weight to small parties. It encourages a more transactional form of politics, based on post-election horse-trading. It produces a more fragmented, inward-looking form of politics, whereby parties no longer need to seek broad-based electoral support in order to achieve power.
These ideas are worth debating, but there is a more immediate reason why Labour should not support PR: it would be electorally catastrophic for the party. PR would mean the end of majority Labour governments and possibly the Labour party.”
-
I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.
I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever
I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections
I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.
Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish
Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course
It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)
So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status
I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely
-
The biggest potential benefit of PR is the chance to bring those who do not vote back into the debate.
I have no problem with people choosing to abstain, but that is different from being outside the arena covered by the main parties. Anything which increases participation is welcome, and if your vote counts under a new system there is more reason to take part.
A good move from Unison IMO, and we need a proper review of the voting system AND the constitution, to create a modern democratic system.
PR will of course, break the model of the existing political parties.
Labour will split between the neo liberal extreme centrists,who may merge with the LD's, and the socialist left. Funding will divide likewise, and that will change the whole landscape.
The Tories are unlikely to remain as a single unit, with the ERG dominance over the legacy conservatives, like Dominic Grieve.
As others say, the system would need to allow for a democratic renewal.
The idea of a job for life, for a candidate parachuted in from outside, is offensive to voters ability to control the elected member. The scandal of Labour imposing a candidate in Wakefield is an example of abuse of the democratic process.
It is only a player if the UK has a hung parliament, where a coalition is needed to give the numbers for support.
-
I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.
I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever
I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections
I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.
Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish
Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course
It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)
So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status
I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely
Your kind of PR gives extremists more power, not less, by rewarding them with seats they can't win at present.
-
There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..
-
I get the impression that certain individuals think that with a PR system in place the electorate will continue to vote along similar lines as now. That being the centre and left of centre parties having an overall majority compared with the right, this in itself would create a majority coalition.
I think it would be the making of us in that extremism from wherever it came would be / should be gone forever
I always cite the Green Party and their abysmal performances in General Elections
I think I posted somewhere the other day that they got about 7% of the votes cast in UK and got 0.2% of the Seats (1 seat Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas) whereas under a simple PR system they should have got about 45 Seats.
Just think of the difference to them and other moderate Parties. People might then be enthused and reward them with 14% of the vote .... Double there seats to 90 ish
Same for Lib Dems and any other Parties of course
It would have meant Tory Seats last GE would have been 260 ish (all these are estimates not totally accurate I concede)
So a fairer system that will be resisted by the big two but better maybe fairer for the Electorate and who knows the 13 million who say " I don't vote cos my vote makes no difference" might realise that under PR we would / should all have equal status
I hope to goodness it is adopted in my lifetime as imo it's got to be worth a go surely
Your kind of PR gives extremists more power, not less, by rewarding them with seats they can't win at present.
Or maybe people don't vote for the known extremists .... but I was talking re Tory extremism as we have at the moment .... and which 57% don't want
.... or Labour extremism when union power was rife who lots of people did not like
Anyway F1 starting that's me done as I have said before I realise I will not change the views of a partisan and neither will they change mine
-
There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..
But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't?
-
I am with Glyn on this.
Just because someone seems "extreme" to you is not a reason for exclusion.
For a democracy to work, all opinions are in the mix.
The real benefit is breaking the logjam of disaffection by giving representation by proportion.
Move the ossified establishment from their comfy perch and see how the cookie crumbles.
Artificial bars to entry simply erode trust, and make it look like a rigged set up....because it is!
-
I am with Glyn on this.
Just because someone seems "extreme" to you is not a reason for exclusion.
For a democracy to work, all opinions are in the mix.
The real benefit is breaking the logjam of disaffection by giving representation by proportion.
Move the ossified establishment from their comfy perch and see how the cookie crumbles.
Artificial bars to entry simply erode trust, and make it look like a rigged set up....because it is!
There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..
But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't?
Absolutely this.
BST supports PR as long as it is rigged his way.
His kind of democracy.
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
-
There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..
But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't
Glyn. I think you and Albie are misunderstanding the point. It wouldn't be anyone choosing to define what is extremist. It would be a 5% or a 2.5% or whatever level blanket requirement for all parties. Left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, xenophobic, religion based or raving loonies.
-
So in this thread we have gone,
We need PR it's democratic, everyone needs to have their vote count.
PR will prevent extremists from getting in because its democratic,
PR will give extremist representation for the first time,
PR will need to have a set bar to prevent extremists getting in,
PR will prevent all from having their vote count because we need to set a bar to prevent nasty's
PR needs to be implemented if your party will benefit from it,
PR needs to be filtered,
Democracy is in danger if we change to the wrong system
FPTP keep's its head down and sneaks onward because everything else also has its failings.
For what its worth, The PR and government system in France has just slapped Macron in the face with a wet fish. The voting public has just decided that even though we voted you in as president because we just couldn't go down the road of an extreme politician being president, we just don't trust you enough to make the right choices for this country.So we are tying your weak French arms and crippling the country of any sort of progressive governance for the foreseeable.
I know the system would be different but who would want this type of a situation here with a botched PR creating a lame duck parliament?
-
DD.
The French system is entirely different from ours. It's far more like the American system in separating the Executive (the section that tries to run the Government -the President or PM) from the legislature (the section that passes or blocks laws - Parliament or Congress).
That can frequently produce a situation where the Executive is at loggerheads with the Legislature.
We don't have that separation. The PM who runs the Government has to have a majority in Parliament. We have had at least 4 occasions in the past 50 years where no party has had a working majority in the Commons, and the PM has had to negotiate with minority parties to hold power (Callaghan in 76-79, Major in the mid-90s, Cameron in 2010-15 and May in 2017-19.)
So it's not that unusual for us.
What PR would do is to prevent the shockingly undemocratic scenario where Blair, Thatcher or Johnson could get whatever legislation through Parliament that they wanted, without ever winning more that 35-43% of the vote in a General Election. That is an outrage against democracy. Unfettered power with 60% of the electorate voting against you.
No PR system is perfect but every one is fairer than that.
-
BST, the point i was making was that even though the French syetm is separate executive and legislative governance the PR element of the legislative has meant that the Executive now cannot get its program through the chamber without cooperation from others, in this case the others will extract a very large price for anything to get voted into stature.
I'm aware you don't like the FPTP voting system because of the "democratic deficit" that allows a party to win with a low overall percentage, but is this still not democracy? the winner takes all. even in this system the majority can come together and create a coalition, if they can't then that means that not enough people think along the same lines to allow this majority to rule, is that not democratic?. Both major partied have governed off this system in the past, i never heard any debate from either about it being unfair and undemocratic, they just got on with it.
Is it not a democratic thing that other parties have arrived at the top table and taken their chances to govern , be it devolved power (SNP) or is this now a big inconvenience to Labour because it prevents them from possibly ever having a large enough majority to govern by themselves in future?
Also,what do you do with the sometimes biggest majority who decide to not bother voting? in the past some of the lowest voting percentages have come from elections that were PR based, i know some might of found those elections uninspiring but what does that tell you?
I think history also tells us that on the occasions when we have had coalition politics we have had unpredictability and drift with legislation being hampered and amended to the point where its become ineffective and unworkable.
I think under the present system you should have a rerun of the election to ensure the winner gets a proper majority, it would exercise the minds of the voters to ensure this happened and they could also be given time to properly interrogate the parties and their manifestos.
-
There's a simple way of starving extremists out of the system. Set a bar of 5% or so of votes as a minimum before any party gets an MP. It would need tweaking for regional parties, but that's not beyond the wit of man..
But then it isn't true PR as you say you want it; and just who gets to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't
Glyn. I think you and Albie are misunderstanding the point. It wouldn't be anyone choosing to define what is extremist. It would be a 5% or a 2.5% or whatever level blanket requirement for all parties. Left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, xenophobic, religion based or raving loonies.
There should be no tweaking of any voting system to prevent those that want to stand from standing, we have had long debates about protecting democracy and have recently discussed voter ID which is arguably deliberately designed to do exactly this. Impediments to stand for election should be the same for all not just those that can raise enough money to pay for fb scraping and advertising. I don't see any reference to members of a proscribed organisation in the link below but I would doubt if proper consideration was given to that effect and provided it was not used as an electioneering tool then possibly it should be included.
''Standing for Parliament''
https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/vote-in-general-elections/standing/
-
Rerunning elections till a result satisfies a particular bloc, what the hell!
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
-
Now Macron does not have a majority I wonder if that wll affect the suuport he promises Ukraine? BE it EU membership or Arms/aid supply?
-
It'll affect it if LePen ends up with any influence.
-
I think some fudged PR system will come into play to appease the electorate. What won't happen is anything that will make the funding of parties something that comes from the treasury, and boot out all the other ways money oils the wheels. And so the absolute mockery of democracy and the "free world" goes on - of course it does and always will.
Why do we bother tinkering with which system of elitist control we are victims to?
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
Maybe it was the News of the World that hacked your account hound, I've always suspected someone was doing it
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
Maybe it was the News of the World that hacked your account hound, I've always suspected someone was doing it
More likely the Guardian Syd seeing as Glyn thinks I am making stuff up.
You are hardly a reliable font of knowledge yourself.
Do you still think that Rolls Royce own the Bentley brand.
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
Maybe it was the News of the World that hacked your account hound, I've always suspected someone was doing it
More likely the Guardian Syd seeing as Glyn thinks I am making stuff up.
You are hardly a reliable font of knowledge yourself.
Do you still think that Rolls Royce own the Bentley brand.
I'm happy to say I made a silly mistake over that hound, but you stretching credibility accusing someone of editing your own comments is something else.
-
Something that virtually guarantees coalition governments is as far from a dictatorship as you can get.
Good to see hound realised what a stupid thing it was to say and removed it.
Well, good that it was me who edited my post this time.
Oh, your memory's come back now, has it? Quelle surprise. I bet it doesn't remember the post you claimed that I'd done that to but never actually demonstrated. Because it never happened.
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
Maybe it was the News of the World that hacked your account hound, I've always suspected someone was doing it
More likely the Guardian Syd seeing as Glyn thinks I am making stuff up.
You are hardly a reliable font of knowledge yourself.
Do you still think that Rolls Royce own the Bentley brand.
I'm happy to say I made a silly mistake over that hound, but you stretching credibility accusing someone of editing your own comments is something else.
So why would that involve the News of the World?
-
I guess you have to start being honest with yourself hound.
-
I guess you have to start being honest with yourself hound.
Haha. Says the man who left the UK “because it is shit” but still can’t let go and feels the need to talk about it every day.
Look in the mirror.
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did.
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
-
I guess you have to start being honest with yourself hound.
Haha. Says the man who left the UK “because it is shit” but still can’t let go and feels the need to talk about it every day.
Look in the mirror.
There you go in your make believe world if you can show where I ever said that knock yourself out.
-
I guess you have to start being honest with yourself hound.
Haha. Says the man who left the UK “because it is shit” but still can’t let go and feels the need to talk about it every day.
Look in the mirror.
There you go in your make believe world if you can show where I ever said that knock yourself out.
When he can't show you anything because it doesn't exist, he'll come out with 'you know when you did'.
-
Oh it did happen on more than one occasion, as I did prove to Hound on a post of mine.
Clever at the time must admit, but sussed.
-
hmmm, I can see where it started to go wrong now
-
Yes you can Syd, Hound was shown a post that had been changed buddy, and he knows it happened to the two of us, and probably a few more along the way.
-
hound's doing ok with a spade, he doesn't need the jcb
-
Going back on subject, just my own personal opinion for what it is worth, just forget about it, you have more chance of seeing Rocking Horse poo, a more relevant subject should be the alterations to constituency boundaries which will be much more relevant in the next election, especially to the Labour marginals in the London area.
-
Syd there is one thing you can say about Hound, at least he is aiming to dig in the right areas.
-
Syd there is one thing you can say about Hound, at least he is aiming to dig in the right areas.
whatever selby as long as you're happy together is all that matters
-
Yes you can Syd, Hound was shown a post that had been changed buddy, and he knows it happened to the two of us, and probably a few more along the way.
Funny it's only the two of you who's seen whatever it is. I'd love to see it. Here's an invitation - show it to everybody and completely humiliate me. Go on, I dare you.
PS You do know that you can edit your own post within a short period of time and it won't say that it's been altered, and that someone can quote you whilst you're changing something and it'll retain the original posting don't you? I do hope this isn't going to turn out to be relating to this otherwise it'll be you that looks the fool.
-
As a totally unrelated point .... The corruption of text in quotes .... See the examples above .... Is making the posts even more unreadable
Can we fix it pls ?
-
Hear, hear. It's obviously something to do with quotation marks, at a guess some of this software is trying to use US ASCII codes instead of UK ASCII codes.
-
Yes you can Syd, Hound was shown a post that had been changed buddy, and he knows it happened to the two of us, and probably a few more along the way.
Did someone change one of you posts to insert a racist diatribe in it?
-
I guess you have to start being honest with yourself hound.
Haha. Says the man who left the UK “because it is shit” but still can’t let go and feels the need to talk about it every day.
Look in the mirror.
There you go in your make believe world if you can show where I ever said that knock yourself out.
I have no idea whether you wrote it on here but there is more than me who heard you repeatedly saying stuff like that in the South Stand before you took off to your better life, but of course continued to talk about the UK every day.
Other posters on here have mentioned that you used that type of diatribe at matches.
-
That's hearsay Hound. Totally valueless in Court.
BobG
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did. H
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Well of course you aren’t going to admit what you did, and of course you are going to say you didn’t do anything.
-
That's hearsay Hound. Totally valueless in Court.
BobG
Bob, who said anything about Court.
-
But you are making personal accusations Hound....
Bob
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did. H
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Well of course you aren’t going to admit what you did, and of course you are going to say you didn’t do anything.
Of course I'm going to say I didn't do what you allege I did - whatever it was because you've never shown me or anybody else - that's what people who didn't do something do.
And of course you're going to carry on lying about it without a shred of evidence. Because there isn't any. Prove me wrong.
-
That's hearsay Hound. Totally valueless in Court.
BobG
As Judge Judy says, if it ain't in court it doesn't exist. So where's this thing I'm supposed to have done? I've never seen it, all I get is 'you know'. Complete bullshit from the start.
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did. H
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Well of course you aren’t going to admit what you did, and of course you are going to say you didn’t do anything.
Of course I'm going to say I didn't do what you allege I did - whatever it was because you've never shown me or anybody else - that's what people who didn't do something do.
And of course you're going to carry on lying about it without a shred of evidence. Because there isn't any. Prove me wrong.
I can’t prove you wrong because I don’t know how you did it, as I have explained all along.
I’m not lying either but I expect you to deny any wrong doing.
However, you know what you did and that is enough for me.
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did. H
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Well of course you aren’t going to admit what you did, and of course you are going to say you didn’t do anything.
Of course I'm going to say I didn't do what you allege I did - whatever it was because you've never shown me or anybody else - that's what people who didn't do something do.
And of course you're going to carry on lying about it without a shred of evidence. Because there isn't any. Prove me wrong.
I can’t prove you wrong because I don’t know how you did it, as I have explained all along.
I’m not lying either but I expect you to deny any wrong doing.
However, you know what you did and that is enough for me.
Did WHAT FFS??? You've never even told me THAT!! Of course I'll deny doing something that you won't tell me what it was. You're not even saying now, so everybody can see for themselves what a load of crap it is.
And you can shove your sanctimonoius 'you know what you did' up your rectum because you've never told so HOW can I know??
And you have the brass neck to continually pick at Sydney for never answering questions when you never answered this one. Ever. And you won't again now.
-
When he can't show you anything because it doesn't exist, he'll come out with 'you know when you did'.
Mystic Glyn knows all.
Except what I've supposed to have done that hound is accusing me of.
-
If you recall correctly I said at the time that I didn’t know how you did it so how the hell could I demonstrate what had happened.
And if you recall correctly I never asked how I was supposed to have done anything - because I know I never did anything. I repeatedly asked you to show me the post I made where I was supposed to have done what you claimed.
You never did. H
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Well of course you aren’t going to admit what you did, and of course you are going to say you didn’t do anything.
Of course I'm going to say I didn't do what you allege I did - whatever it was because you've never shown me or anybody else - that's what people who didn't do something do.
And of course you're going to carry on lying about it without a shred of evidence. Because there isn't any. Prove me wrong.
I can’t prove you wrong because I don’t know how you did it, as I have explained all along.
I’m not lying either but I expect you to deny any wrong doing.
However, you know what you did and that is enough for me.
Did WHAT FFS??? You've never even told me THAT!! Of course I'll deny doing something that you won't tell me what it was. You're not even saying now, so everybody can see for themselves what a load of crap it is.
And you can shove your sanctimonoius 'you know what you did' up your rectum because you've never told so HOW can I know??
And you have the brass neck to continually pick at Sydney for never answering questions when you never answered this one. Ever. And you won't again now.
Put the toys back in the pram boy.
I don’t think anyone gives a shit about our disagreement but I have told you previously what you did.
To quote you “we both know”.
-
Put the toys back in the pram boy.
I don’t think anyone gives a shit about our disagreement but I have told you previously what you did.
To quote you “we both know”.
I think people will give a shit about knowing exactly what your true character is, especially when you throw crap at other forum users.
Thanks for quoting me, but next time use the full quote, eh? You don't want people knowing that true character by other means, do you?
Because we both know I didn't do anything of the sort.
Good of you to acknowledge that.
-
You don't need to know how something was done, to show the evidence that supports your allegation.
-
You don't need to know how something was done, to show the evidence that supports your allegation.
Exactly. Looks like people are interested, hound.
-
Hear, hear. It's obviously something to do with quotation marks, at a guess some of this software is trying to use US ASCII codes instead of UK ASCII codes.
As a total techno dunce I cut and pasted some of the "offending text" so it would be right there for the Mods / Admin to see ....
.... and bugger me , when I posted it the gobbledygook turned back readable lol ... so I chopped it out
Give it a try ... Even more mystifying !
-
Feels like some serious gaslighting going on here.
-
Hear, hear. It's obviously something to do with quotation marks, at a guess some of this software is trying to use US ASCII codes instead of UK ASCII codes.
As a total techno dunce I cut and pasted some of the "offending text" do it would be right there for the Mods / Admin to see ....
.... and bugger me , when I posted it the gobbledygook turned back readable lol ... so I chopped it out
Give it a try ... Even more mystifying !
It seems to confuse the ASCII when quoting. Were you doing that or just posting it without quoting?
-
Feels like some serious gaslighting going on here.
True character etc.
And, if what selby says is true (which I severely doubt anyway) and he told hound I'd done something, and hound was so cretinous as to actually believe him no wonder he can't point to anything.
-
Hear, hear. It's obviously something to do with quotation marks, at a guess some of this software is trying to use US ASCII codes instead of UK ASCII codes.
As a total techno dunce I cut and pasted some of the "offending text" do it would be right there for the Mods / Admin to see ....
.... and bugger me , when I posted it the gobbledygook turned back readable lol ... so I chopped it out
Give it a try ... Even more mystifying !
It seems to confuse the ASCII when quoting. Were you doing that or just posting it without quoting?
Hi again
Yes I posted reply #60 without any quoting but just after the words ... See the examples above .... I pasted in a copy of some of the duff text as an example
Then I posted it and the bugger was perfectly readable. So I then removed it again as it wasn't a very good example lol
-
No Billy, you just assumed what you wanted to see. It suits your personality to see the worst in anyone that thinks your idea of utopia is wrong.
And in this case you are way off centre buddy, that's why I just ignore the boring idea you have of me, Like wiping dog poo off my shoe you mean nothing to me, Just vent your spleen at me buddy its nothing, not even an irritating itch and keeps you off other peoples back, and might even give you a moment of feeling the important me that you seem to get off on.
Unlike you Billy not liking me, I don't even dislike you,your not that high in my thoughts, your nothing an irrelevance to me
-
That's hearsay Hound. Totally valueless in Court.
BobG
Bob, who said anything about Court.
Corbyn was talking about it till he received a ''substantial amount'' of money which he gave to charity
-
Feels like some serious gaslighting going on here.
That’s like Bogle pointing out that some League one strikers aren’t very good.