Sandwich

[RedHerring2]

Why would anyone settle for a ham sandwich when they had ordered a cheese one?
A refund or replacement, surely

You're trying to simplify a complex group of dynamics inot a 'this or that' option.

But it's not that simplistic. The present case shows where one party can differ on one issue and refuse to give on that occasion, e.g Tories on Euro and PR, Lib Dems on Civil Tax breaks, etc



Politics is complex, complicated and confused. You're trying to simplify it into an 'us & them' situation.

Suppose a group of 10 people ordered from the menu which only had cheese & ham sandwiches available.
7 agreed to order sandwiches even though none of them wanted cheese & ham. 2 of the ones who wanted cheese agreed to give their ham to the ham eaters and the 2 of the ones who wanted ham agreed to give their cheese to the others. The other 3 that had ordered changed their mind and ate cheese & ham. 3 others refused to order anything and went hungry.

That's a more appropriate analogy.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

so why a sandwich analogy?
sandwiches are normaly straight forward!

 

[RedHerring2]

Sorry edit was posted after your reply.
I didn't start the sandwich analogy and you continued it.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Suppose a group of 10 people ordered from the menu which only had cheese & ham sandwhiches available.
7 agreed to order sandwhiches even though none of them wanted cheese & ham. 2 of the ones who wanted cheese agreed to give their ham to the ham eaters and the 2 of the ones who wanted ham agreed to give their cheese to the others. The other 3 that had ordered changed their mind and ate cheese & ham. 3 others refused to order anything and went hungry.

That's a more appropriate analogy.

What if ten people got told tuna salad was all they could have, like it or lump it.

 

[RedHerring2]

Suppose a group of 10 people ordered from the menu which only had cheese & ham sandwhiches available.
7 agreed to order sandwhiches even though none of them wanted cheese & ham. 2 of the ones who wanted cheese agreed to give their ham to the ham eaters and the 2 of the ones who wanted ham agreed to give their cheese to the others. The other 3 that had ordered changed their mind and ate cheese & ham. 3 others refused to order anything and went hungry.

That's a more appropriate analogy.

What if ten people got told tuna salad was all they could have, like it or lump it.

A different cafe, try to change the menu,???
Maybe some would have the tuna salad, maybe the ham eaters have tuna and give away their salad.
The salad eaters do somethig similar, etc??

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I like tuna salad and cheese and ham especially with pickle, hummy!

 

[RedHerring2]

I like tuna salad and cheese and ham especially with pickle, hummy!

Sorry, they took pickle off the menu 'cos there was not enough demand for it.

 

[skitzee2k]

Redherring, Now I know you're a Lib Dem.

1)skitzee2k wrote:
The chances of agreeing with everything that a manifesto has is quite high, because they all tend to be done in a similar line of thinking.
You : Doesn't that support the statement of "There's little to choose between the parties"?

No, i meant, all the policies in any one manifesto tend to have a similar line of thought.

2) Nick Clegg was wrong when he said the cap only applied to 20% of immigrants. The office of Statistics have said it is closer to 52%.
He apparently got the 20% from an opinion piece in 'The Economist'.

3) If you DID vote, you would be required to give a list of preference as we could potentially be in a position that no candidate does gets 51% of the vote if the people that get eliminated do not have other preferences, meaning no-one gets elected...unless you get rid of the 51% target and just go for the candidate with the most votes...but that is FPTP.
So in order to vote at all I would need to give preference to parties I do not wish to.

4)skitzee2k wrote:
I think you are dreaming of a utopia where everyone has the same ideals. It will not happen.

You :Not at all. I want pluralism where everyone's different opinion is considered and worth a similar amount and hopefully satisfied in the end result.

How is it possible to all have different views and all agree? Doesn't work as a government movement. Your idea that we should introduce all three immigration policies would be met with negativity. Labour and Lib Dems don't want the cap, Labour and Con didn't want the amnesty etc.


And I completely disagree that the only reason people have a different view of the national interest is due to self interest.

A lot of people honestly feel their view is fairer, even if it means they are personally disadvantaged.

 

[lifesagasman]

I'll go for ham and cheese.