Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

The voting system in this country means that rarely do we get a government chosen by the majority of the electorate.
So, while this government were voted in, they may not have been the choice of the majority of the voters.
But then. It doesn't matter who is voted in, they never ever correct the things that they saw as problems when they were in opposition. For example many governments have known about the tax loopholes....have any of them dealt with these loopholes? Of course they haven't.
If large multinational companies paid their taxes like those of us on PAYE,there would be enough money to sustain the welfare system, to keep police on the streets.
So WHY Has it not been resolved?
We all know that politicians are only interested in the views of the electorate when there is an election coming up.....they treat the voters with ill concealed disdain.
We are not considered bright enough to be able to make decisions about our lives.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

I agree about Tax loopholes never being addressed, Blair @ his acolytes are as bad as the tories in that respect certainly, I think maybe labour may now have a guy that will? although i certainly dont agree with some stuff he leans towards, its also a case of if the so called "Media" ever allows him to become P.M. our own M.P. certainly will not IMHO.:(

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

That isn't really true, you are playing with words. This Government was selected by the majority of those who either cared enough or could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote.

If you don't vote you lose your say in the way the country is run.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

No, Neil, I am not playing with words as you put it.
The 'first past the post' system is not going to give the majority of electors the government of their choice.
That is proved by the number of votes polled by say, UKIP, yet they got only one seat in parliament.
The more parties there are the less chance that the majority of the electors will get a government which reflects their views as the vote is diluted by the number of parties available to vote for.
I am not sure that I am explaining myself very well.
The only way to get a true majority is to have proportional representation......but this would put many people off from voting as it is far more complicated than the first past the post system.

And there is little incentive to vote when politicians do not take heed of what the electorate wants.....like the limits on immigration.....parties ignored the concerns of the electorate and the electorate responded.
A lot of people are disenchanted with politics because politicians are seen to be dishonest. Out for themselves and having lost touch with the people they are SUPPOSED to be representing.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Care to evidence this Mr Super moderator?

Because I can evidence that just over 11.3 million voted for this government and 20+ million 'cared enough and could be bothered to get off their backsides', voted against and were ignored.

I'm one of those 20+ million and I'm entitled to my say.

People who didn't vote did so for a variety of reasons, (on holiday, sick, out of the country, thought all the candidates were rubbish etc..) and even if they could not be bothered, they do not lose the right to have their say in a free society....

You should change your title to 'supercilious moderator'...it would be more apt!

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

The Conservatives received 36.9% of the votes of those "who either cared enough or could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote."

Am I playing with numbers to say that means 63.1% DIDN'T vote for them?

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Only slightly, it was 38.3%
But then, Labour only got 31%, so 69% didn't vote for them either.
SNP got 4.9% and 56 seats, UKIP got 13% and only one seat!
Nobody said it would be fair!
It's in the interests of the two main parties to keep it this way so there's no chance of proportional representation for a while yet. With Google Page Ranking they'd be forced into coalitions and like Italy nothing would get done.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Where on earth did 'Google Page Ranking' come from?
Should have been 'Google Page Ranking'. Must be an age thing.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

It's done it again! I put the first letters of Proportional Representation!
I give up.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Italy's system has been bastardised by a corrupt government. The Germans don't seem to be doing too badly, neither do the Danes, the Fins and the Norwegians.

Government for the people, by the people etc.. as opposed to the current system so typified by the Graham Jones attitude of 'I know better than the people who voted for me so who cares what they think'!

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

I think you both proved the Tories won with the majority required by our voting system.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Why would that be?

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

People who fell for the traitorous Cameron scare tactics will be regretting their vote now over immigration economy tax credits fiddling unemployment figures standard of living selling off assets to his mates his support of Murdoch who is trying to split the UK for his own ends the sun support the SNPin Scotland the tories in england he has a cheek to stand in front of the British flag he is the most un British pm ever.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

Yes Neil they did.
But although they won by the majority required by our voting system, that does not mean that a majority of the electorate voted for them to govern.
For this to happen the voting system would have to be seriously overhauled and proportional representation brought in.
Now, of course that will not happen any day soon as there is no political appetite for it to be implemented. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
The current system (and the boundary changes)gives the Tory party a head start.
And without putting too fine a point on it,your answer is ever so slightly pedantic.

Re: Labour Leadership Contest
 

that’s NOT what you said…..

You said…

Which is clearly disproved by 3 people not 2

Ain’t you just.

Your post was not only bereft of any facts, it was conceited, smug and disdainful of the ‘majority’ of the electorate who did not vote for the current government…. i.e.supercilious

Would you like me to define any more big words for you?