Coronavirus

[Sweep 1,095]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

you are correct I never thought of it like that. But, taking it literally and following I trhtouh , a vote for your local MP is a vote for the PM in a general election. That’s what a GE is, is it not? 

Not always, Caroline Lucas from the Green Party has been an MP for Brighton for about 10 years - when the people of Brighton vote her in, they're not casting that vote thinking that she or anybody else from her party will be PM, they're voting because they believe that she, as an individual, will do what's best for her constituency. So therefore, it's can't be true that voting for your local MP is a vote for the PM in a GE

[Spider 2,187]

2 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

We voted against PR in 2010 or so.

Clearly the will of the public to retain the system and given we are one of the great nations, then it has obviously worked.

I'm happy enough with our electoral system. It's not flawless, like.

I doubt any system would have stopped loads of floating voters from being drawn into Boris's well crafted, self-deprecating, daft Etonian slapstick but-he-must-know-what-he's-doing pastiche.

He's got another test now as Heathrow has been told it can expand. He said he'd lie down in front of the bulldozers for his constituents. But managed to miss a commons vote to try and stop it.

He's shit. And the clock is ticking.

 

I watched a load of the Thatcher stuff on BBC4 last night. She would have sorted Brexit and Covid and we'd all be arguing about pit closures by now.

[Escobarp 1,529]

7 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Not always, Caroline Lucas from the Green Party has been an MP for Brighton for about 10 years - when the people of Brighton vote her in, they're not casting that vote thinking that she or anybody else from her party will be PM, they're voting because they believe that she, as an individual, will do what's best for her constituency. So therefore, it's can't be true that voting for your local MP is a vote for the PM in a GE

I’m not arsed anyway I don’t vote for any of them. It’s you fucking clowns that do then moan about it 😄

[Escobarp 1,529]

https://gov.wales/coronavirus-control-plan-alert-levels-wales

[mickbrown 909]

17 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

We voted against PR in 2010 or so.

Clearly the will of the public to retain the system and given we are one of the great nations, then it has obviously worked.

Aye. Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of folk would rather not have the cunt.

[Not in Crawley 452]

I'm not sure I massively get this london centric bias, I might feel differently if I wasn't here but the difference between the tiers isn't huge but it does make a difference to the rate of the growth. I went to one independant pub in central and a small slice of pizza counted for a meal and then drink as much as you want, which would happen everywhere. Keep us all at tier 3 with amendments, I don't agree with not opening social distanced resturants, museums etc these have to be booked and time slots allocated - same with a thetare, went twice and was fine with the rules - although not as nice an experience to be fair.

I get that many haven't had the same freedoms as I have enjoyed for a lot longer. Its only been a few weeks of relative hardship.

I'd be surpised if the NW went to T2, and as people say, that's maybe the payoff for the christmas mixing. Anyway, just back from Bomley town, I have to say it is a bit depressing with all the cafe's shut.

 

[Escobarp 1,529]

Just now, mickbrown said:

Aye. Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of folk would rather not have the cunt.

And by definition an even bigger majority didn’t want any of the other parties 

[mickbrown 909]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

And by definition an even bigger majority didn’t want any of the other parties 

Correct

[boltondiver 1,406]

21 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Aye. Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of folk would rather not have the cunt.

Where’s your evidence for that?

[kent_white 1,282]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

140,000 a week

Lets say they need to get 30 million done to cover the main groups

Thats 4 years.

Need to up the game if they can

It'll ramp up considerably in the coming weeks. If we start using the Oxford Vaccine then I understand non clinicians will be trained to give it too - in which case it'll increase by orders of magnitude.

140,000 in the first week is decent going.

[Spider 2,187]

4 minutes ago, kent_white said:

It'll ramp up considerably in the coming weeks. If we start using the Oxford Vaccine then I understand non clinicians will be trained to give it too - in which case it'll increase by orders of magnitude.

140,000 in the first week is decent going.

Not knocking it, I know it's hard with the Pfizer vaccine. 

Just hoping they can be getting 1million+ per week done by Jan/Feb

[Not in Crawley 452]

46 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Is that correct? Was he not elected as leader of the conservatives and THEN went to a general election to confirm his current term as PM and won that election by a large margin with a public vote by the people of the UK? Or is my understanding of our political system incorrect? 
 

guess it is correct how he became PM by default initially. But the people voted him in a large majority. That’s a lot of stupid people in your highly educated opinion 

Think this shows why Brexit et al are bad ideas for referendums as we all have very little idea how even the basics work - that's not a pop Esco, its just that electorial systems are arcane and not designed brilliantly - they are a mix of historic traditions and best system at the time of conception with layers and layers of changes sat on top like some sedimentary soil. Its difficult to dig out their real purpose.

Of our two main parties, the Labour leadership is determined by its members, you wanted to get rid of Corbyn, pay the subs, you have a vote. Hence why the Trade Union's can be so unhealthy for the party and Blair's most powerful move was to remove Clause 4, basically scuppering them and low and behold we got a centrist liberal democratic movement. But also why you get a 'broad church' or a 'huge tent with no-one agreeing' The Conserviatves are voted by the MPs, which allows them to be more rutheless and essentially a machine designed for power. Popularity waning? Out you go. Just read about the 10 days from Hesletine declaring he was going to run for the leadership to Thatcher leaving Number 10. Its brutal. So long, Maggie, and thanks for everything. Also the Tories aren't relying on Union subs to fund them so they don't have to bow (or govern in the name of depending on your point of view) to anyone. The flip side of that is they get themselves into real difficulties awarding big fat business contracts who those who they know or who have ties to the party - which, I'm sure anyone of any political view would believe isn't a great idea.

So you have a sprawling, ancient, and often not fit for purpose system. But it has held peace, so people generally are happy to carry on in broadly liberal, capitalist, secular democracy. State support with a strive for a meriococracy (although its not generally the case) 

We never vote for our PM - I know that people 'do', and most people can't name their MP. But we literally don't. We got rid of that chance in 1660.

And that's our system of the parties just electing leaders, asking folk to get their heads around complex economic trade systems in a binary vote was pretty bonkers for everyone. BUT its conception does go back to party leadership, because the Tories vote their leaders in, rather than the 'party' itself, they always in constant tention with their backbenchers in a way that the Labour party isn't that concerned with until recently. Let the far left shout from the sidelines, it doesn't make much difference to the Labour cabinet as they have no say of who is in or out. Not the same with the Conservatives. As we know Cameron needed to stop the swell of dissent of the backbenchers getting behind UKIP (despite UKIP being a more electoral issue for Labour) he promised it in his manifesto to get the party behind him during the election so that he won a majority. That worked, but here we are with the aftermath. An avoidable disruption caused in order to help keep powerful people in power.

And it was ever thus....

[Spider 2,187]

2 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Think this shows why Brexit et al are bad ideas for referendums as we all have very little idea how even the basics work - that's not a pop Esco, its just that electorial systems are arcane and not designed brilliantly - they are a mix of historic traditions and best system at the time of conception with layers and layers of changes sat on top like some sedimentary soil. Its difficult to dig out their real purpose.

Of our two main parties, the Labour leadership is determined by its members, you wanted to get rid of Corbyn, pay the subs, you have a vote. Hence why the Trade Union's can be so unhealthy for the party and Blair's most powerful move was to remove Clause 4, basically scuppering them and low and behold we got a centrist liberal democratic movement. But also why you get a 'broad church' or a 'huge tent with no-one agreeing' The Conserviatves are voted by the MPs, which allows them to be more rutheless and essentially a machine designed for power. Popularity waning? Out you go. Just read about the 10 days from Hesletine declaring he was going to run for the leadership to Thatcher leaving Number 10. Its brutal. So long, Maggie, and thanks for everything. Also the Tories aren't relying on Union subs to fund them so they don't have to bow (or govern in the name of depending on your point of view) to anyone. The flip side of that is they get themselves into real difficulties awarding big fat business contracts who those who they know or who have ties to the party - which, I'm sure anyone of any political view would believe isn't a great idea.

So you have a sprawling, ancient, and often not fit for purpose system. But it has held peace, so people generally are happy to carry on in broadly liberal, capitalist, secular democracy. State support with a strive for a meriococracy (although its not generally the case) 

We never vote for our PM - I know that people 'do', and most people can't name their MP. But we literally don't. We got rid of that chance in 1660.

And that's our system of the parties just electing leaders, asking folk to get their heads around complex economic trade systems in a binary vote was pretty bonkers for everyone. BUT its conception does go back to party leadership, because the Tories vote their leaders in, rather than the 'party' itself, they always in constant tention with their backbenchers in a way that the Labour party isn't that concerned with until recently. Let the far left shout from the sidelines, it doesn't make much difference to the Labour cabinet as they have no say of who is in or out. Not the same with the Conservatives. As we know Cameron needed to stop the swell of dissent of the backbenchers getting behind UKIP (despite UKIP being a more electoral issue for Labour) he promised it in his manifesto to get the party behind him during the election so that he won a majority. That worked, but here we are with the aftermath. An avoidable disruption caused in order to help keep powerful people in power.

And it was ever thus....

@Rudy

Is there any way you can transpose the post above onto a big pair of tits, with a framework of flaming biffa skips?

I think that might neatly summarise this site.

[mickbrown 909]

21 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Where’s your evidence for that?

I'll rephrase that.

A majority of the people didn't vote for the cunt.

[boltondiver 1,406]

9 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Think this shows why Brexit et al are bad ideas for referendums as we all have very little idea how even the basics work - that's not a pop Esco, its just that electorial systems are arcane and not designed brilliantly - they are a mix of historic traditions and best system at the time of conception with layers and layers of changes sat on top like some sedimentary soil. Its difficult to dig out their real purpose.

Of our two main parties, the Labour leadership is determined by its members, you wanted to get rid of Corbyn, pay the subs, you have a vote. Hence why the Trade Union's can be so unhealthy for the party and Blair's most powerful move was to remove Clause 4, basically scuppering them and low and behold we got a centrist liberal democratic movement. But also why you get a 'broad church' or a 'huge tent with no-one agreeing' The Conserviatves are voted by the MPs, which allows them to be more rutheless and essentially a machine designed for power. Popularity waning? Out you go. Just read about the 10 days from Hesletine declaring he was going to run for the leadership to Thatcher leaving Number 10. Its brutal. So long, Maggie, and thanks for everything. Also the Tories aren't relying on Union subs to fund them so they don't have to bow (or govern in the name of depending on your point of view) to anyone. The flip side of that is they get themselves into real difficulties awarding big fat business contracts who those who they know or who have ties to the party - which, I'm sure anyone of any political view would believe isn't a great idea.

So you have a sprawling, ancient, and often not fit for purpose system. But it has held peace, so people generally are happy to carry on in broadly liberal, capitalist, secular democracy. State support with a strive for a meriococracy (although its not generally the case) 

We never vote for our PM - I know that people 'do', and most people can't name their MP. But we literally don't. We got rid of that chance in 1660.

And that's our system of the parties just electing leaders, asking folk to get their heads around complex economic trade systems in a binary vote was pretty bonkers for everyone. BUT its conception does go back to party leadership, because the Tories vote their leaders in, rather than the 'party' itself, they always in constant tention with their backbenchers in a way that the Labour party isn't that concerned with until recently. Let the far left shout from the sidelines, it doesn't make much difference to the Labour cabinet as they have no say of who is in or out. Not the same with the Conservatives. As we know Cameron needed to stop the swell of dissent of the backbenchers getting behind UKIP (despite UKIP being a more electoral issue for Labour) he promised it in his manifesto to get the party behind him during the election so that he won a majority. That worked, but here we are with the aftermath. An avoidable disruption caused in order to help keep powerful people in power.

And it was ever thus....

Point of order

The members voted Boris in, not the Conservative MPs, after it was narrowed down by MPs

 

[boltondiver 1,406]

Just now, mickbrown said:

I'll rephrase that.

A majority of the people didn't vote for the cunt.

And that’s a fact

[Rudy 1,333]

3 minutes ago, Spider said:

@Rudy

Is there any way you can transpose the post above onto a big pair of tits, with a framework of flaming biffa skips?

I think that might neatly summarise this site.

Bit busy at the moment will this suffice for now

 

[Not in Crawley 452]

24 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Point of order

The members voted Boris in, not the Conservative MPs, after it was narrowed down by MPs

 

Now, now lets not split hairs - 4 old women in Kettering do not a democratic vote make... 😁

Edited December 16, 2020 by Not in Crawley

[little whitt 495]

2 hours ago, Spider said:

I'm an MP

you can do out you like 

knock on a pub door and they will open for you no meal needed 

[gonzo 3,045]

 

[Mr Grey 805]

1 hour ago, mickbrown said:

Aye. Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of folk would rather not have the cunt.

Tbh they all Cunts, it's just what category of 'Cunts' they are in.

Boris - Top bullshitting cunt

Starmer - Smarmy Lawyer cunt 🤪

[Mr Grey 805]

1 hour ago, mickbrown said:

I'll rephrase that.

A majority of the people didn't vote for the cunt.

But he got more votes than the other cunts

[Spider 2,187]

7 minutes ago, gonzo said:

 

It’ll all get defended by Tories.

 

[mickbrown 909]

8 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

But he got more votes than the other cunts

He won the cunt-off

[L/H White 519]

tier announcement not til tomorrow now? 

they purposely leaked what would happen with London days in advance 

they love fucking the north over those vermin rats