This.SNP 1.5m votes 59 MP's
UKIP 3.8m votes 1 MP
Noble words but they'd need a big fucking armyNATO should commit to the protection of human rights for every citizen on Earth and, after periods of diplomacy, should militarily intervene in countries where they are being abused
I think you're right .This.
I know people say it's sour grapes because you've lost but it's not.
I firmly believe that as a country our politics would be less antagonistic if the system was PR and parties had to work together to form coalitions.
People would also feel their vote counted for something.
At the moment it's a handful of voters in certain marginals that determine the outcome.
Noble words but they'd need a big fucking army
A few marginal councils have been reported to Electoral Commission for refusing votes at polling stations near Universities.
This might get a bit ugly
Most likely because thick students are still registered to vote at home rather than their university address and then don't understand why they aren't able to vote. Nothing to see here.
Sadly mate, the money put into NATO is completely wasted on red tape and meetings, they have meetings to arrange meetings about meetings. Similar to the UN, and just as bad at organising anything.There's enough money and manpower there
Fair enough. I was just thinking that the existing majority is/was (I think) 15? And it's been widely acknowledged that the tory campaign has been pretty woeful. Taking that into account, would Labour not expect to have limited the rise in the majority to "reasonable" (whatever that is!) levels. Would a rise of 50-60 seats really be acceptable to the Labour hierarchy?Don't think 60+ would be a clusterfuck mate.
I think Jezz would get away with below 70.
Between70 -100 it's looking dodgy, and 100+ ( which is where I think it will end up unfortunately) he'll probably go in September.
Labour need to stick with their current policies and elect a more voter friendly leader like Dan Jarvis or Clive Lewis, both ex military.
When the crisis that is Brexit hits and the voters are fed up of more austerity then Labour could then be in a realistic position to form a government.
French tv apparently talking of a high turnout and youth turnout
French tv apparently talking of a high turnout and youth turnout
How would they know?
Well out of a nearly 70m population there will be a lot of voters that don't get their way. I think the current system is still the fairest for across the country (besides unequal devolution that can f*** off). If feasible, the prime minister/a president would add more fairness whoever gets the most votes overall though - particularly where local representation doesn't apply (e.g. if a president in a particular system).Flipping the figures round is not right either but you can't deny that this system is crazy , 3.8m voters are not represented , is this democracy ?
and burning sheepThey've been hanging around the polling stations smoking, drinking strong coffee and shrugging their shoulders nonchalantly
Trouble is mate based on your argument you can never raise tax on businesses or top end earners because they will avoid it.Labour's figures do add up but don't stand up to scrutiny. They amount to an academic projection of how much revenue would be raised assuming no avoidance measures were taken by any of the entities facing a higher tax burden. The reality is those facing higher taxes would be very very likely to avoid and mitigate their higher liabilities wherever possible. As you rightly say, however, Labour's spending commitments are costed, whereas the conservatives' aren't. So the choice we face today is between a party whose costings don't stand up to scrutiny, and a party whose costings are non-existent.
Heigh ho.
@@BluePhil8What's BluePhil's handle? Surprised I haven't seen his username mentioned in this election thread.