So when will the Met investigate the party?

[Notch7]

(With respect) people are dying in hopsitals as they always have. Overall death rates, the true indicator of a pandemic, are not significantly higher than normal

with respect, you’ve avoided the point I made.

If you faced a day at the sharp end seeing people very ill with Covid, you would soon drop all this sh1t you spout like claiming death rates were not higher. You conspiracists just rinse and repeat the same cr@p all day long.

 

[Notch7]

The danger is when the Judiciary take that law, and apply it as to what they think it ought to be. Miller II is a good illustration.

brexit supporters that think proroguing Parliament and lying to the Queen, acceptable, show just how far they allow their moral compass to be bent out of shape.

proroguing Parliament is a perfect example of why courts should have power over the executive to stop them breaking the law.

 

[Notch7]

They have PR in Germany and nothing ever changes. Merkel was wielding power for nearly 20 years and was chancellor for most of that time

Strawman argument.

The length of time in power is not proof PR isn’t democratic or not working.

 

[AngleEyes]

Eventually they screw up and someone ousts them on a change agenda. They have PR in Germany and nothing ever changes. Merkel was wielding power for nearly 20 years and was chancellor for most of that time.

Strawman argument.

The length of time in power is not proof PR isn’t democratic or not working.

The length of time in power is actually counter-intuitive to motorbiking's argument, that PR isn't democratic or working.
If a government is in power for a long time, and 20 years for the same leader, in a democracy, is a long time, then it suggests that a) the electorate are comfortable and satisfied with that leader, b) that the policies are acceptable, c) that the government has the respect and trust of the people, d) that the government are an acceptable alternative to severe swings to far-sided politics, e) business is comfortable and satisfied with policies and the stability of that government.

In addition, as Germany is considered to be the most successful nation in Europe, then it also shows that the economy thrives under stable government.

In addition, in countries with PR types of democracies, has there ever been any discussion about changing to FPTP style of elections?
If not, that also would suggest that the PR system is more universally acceptable.
Whereas, a change from a FPTP, to a PR style of government is a regular discussion in UK's FPTP system.

The recent referendum was a bit of a compromise. It was a referendum on AV, not on PR.

The referendum concerned whether or not to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method, and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum​

 

[motorbiking]

Generally those pushing for change are those who don’t like the two main parties. It’s only natural to want to change to increase your political influence or the power of your vote.

 

[AngleEyes]

Generally those pushing for change are those who don’t like the two main parties. It’s only natural to want to change to increase your political influence or the power of your vote.

It's also a natural desire if you're sick of the repetitive and pointless swing back and for all the time of the typical policies of UK government.
And that is not limited to proponents of only the 'other' parties. Many main party supporters will also be disillusioned by the perpetual swing of UK governments. Most moderate supporters of the main parties would be satisfied with moderate policies of either party.
It’s only the extremists that resist change of the system, but consistently try to change the rules, financing and boundaries to increase their influence and power of their vote, not to mention violating the rules sometimes.

 

[motorbiking]

I would expect voter turnout to be much lower if that were true. Most people don’t care much about politics. Myself included. More important things to worry about. I vote for less/smaller if that was an option.

 

[AngleEyes]

I would expect voter turnout to be much lower if that were true. Most people don’t care much about politics. Myself included. More important things to worry about. I vote for less/smaller if that was an option.

The Tories won with less than 30% of the electorate in 2019 (43% of 67% turn out)
So the figures of the AV referendum do not look quote so impressive, or more impressive, depending on your point of view.

AV was rejected by 69% of 42% turnout. That's about 28% of electorate.

 

[motorbiking]

Would you consider 67% good, average or bad?

I’m not convinced that those who didn’t vote can be counted as supporting or not supporting. They simply didn’t vote and can’t be counted.

 

[AngleEyes]

Would you consider 67% good, average or bad?

How is this discussion relevant?

I’m not convinced that those who didn’t vote can be counted as supporting or not supporting. They simply didn’t vote and can’t be counted.

I'm confident that those who didn't vote weren't counted, at least in UK, anyways.

 

[motorbiking]

Because you are suggesting only 28% rejected it? While that is true, it doesn’t mean 72% were in favour.

Either the exam question was wrong or the majority (almost 70%) rejected it. So it doesn’t support the idea that people want change. Unless the change you want is for them to change their mind.

 

[SirGalahad]

Because you are suggesting only 28% rejected it? While that is true, it doesn’t mean 72% were in favour.

Either the exam question was wrong or the majority (almost 70%) rejected it. So it doesn’t support the idea that people want change. Unless the change you want is for them to change their mind.

Make voting compulsory and make it PR so everyones votes counts. Isn't that what we want from a liberal democracy?

I can't see any strong argument for fptp other than locking in hegemony.

 

[motorbiking]

I’d defend peoples’ right not to give a sh** about politics and abstain. I understand you want change and care, but surely you can respect others’ right to not?

 

[SirGalahad]

I’d defend peoples’ right not to give a sh** about politics and abstain. I understand you want change and care, but surely you can respect others’ right to not?

The change I want is an end to the two party rule. It doesn't reflect the diverse nature of peoples politics.

What about their rights to not having to show ID? Would you defend that as well?

If they dont want to vote they can spoil their vote.

People need to be encouraged to vote.

 

[motorbiking]

You are right, it doesn't. Most people don't care about politics.