Oh hey, savy meet politics, politics this is savy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Printable View
Oh hey, savy meet politics, politics this is savy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Haha an American mocking our democratic system.
Explain to me how your nation is democratic again, banana. What's the Electoral College?
HA! If your system was so great, then maybe America wouldn't have fought a whole war with you just to get away from it. I have no idea how you take comfort in the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How is it not? Why is your definition of democracy confined to simple-majority rule?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's the benevolent magical force that prevented President Gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You keep trying to have digs at me as if I'm taking the position that I think how the UK is ran is a good thing.
I don't think you're taking what I said literally enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of German descent, no less. Check out how they changed their name to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg during WWI.Quote:
Originally Posted by banana
I take no comfort from that, although I will say that their influence is minimal when it comes to politics, at least, it's minimal from the point of view of the electorate. Most morons here think the Royal Family is worth having for the tourism, but I don't think one can put a price on true democracy.
It's not a simple "majority rule", not unless it's a two-party system. The Tories have power here with a house majority, but not a majority of votes.Quote:
How is it not? Why is your definition of democracy confined to simple-majority rule?
Our system is indeed fucked up, but it seems slightly more democratic than America's. You guys really need to get rid of the EC. And if you think that's what stopped Gore, you have a bad memory. Either that or it's fingers in ears refusing to accept that Bush cheated.
Jesus man. This would be hilarious if it wasn't kinda sad. You're splitting hairs over the word 'majority', yet then follow it up by saying the Tories have a majority...it's just a different kind of majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
BUY A FUCKING DICTIONARY!!
The word you're looking for is 'plurality'. But you're de-railing now anyway. The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.
.Quote:
Our system is indeed fucked up, but it seems slightly more democratic than America's. You guys really need to get rid of the EC
Why? So liberal politicians can win elections on platforms of urban aid that only benefit New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, San Fran, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, St Louis, and Philadelphia? What about the rest of Amerca? How would you ensure that rural concerns are represented in all levels of government?
I recommend you wear less tinfoil.Quote:
And if you think that's what stopped Gore, you have a bad memory. Either that or it's fingers in ears refusing to accept that Bush cheated.
They called an election now because they thought they'd have a better chance of winning an immediate election than if they waited another two years or whatever time they have remaining. It's as simple as that. All this talk about wanting a mandate is them blowing smoke up our asses.
The stuff about a mandate isn't blowing smoke up asses it's setting the frame that they want. It's very important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Obviously it's bullshit in terms of why they did it but it's certainly not in terms of attempting to optimise their result of doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
In other words, blowing smoke up our asses to set the frame that they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
lol who's talking out of ass?Quote:
The word you're looking for is 'plurality'. But you're de-railing now anyway. The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.
The Tories have a majority in Parliament because they control more than half of the seats.
They don't have a mjaority when it comes to votes because they got something like 35% or some shit.
One is a majority, the other is a plurality.
Not necessarily, but surely if we're striving for the perfect democracy, then votes should have equal power, right? My vote should be exactly as powerful as anyone else's. But it's not. That divide is greater in USA than it is UK, that's my measure of how effective our "democracy" is.Quote:
The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.
Ok...so answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How do you ensure that rural votes have equal power if you eliminate the electoral college? How do you prevent the urban class from overwhelming an election?
The whole point is individuals get a vote. What you're talking about is retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No no no no no savy you don't get it: rural votes need to count MORE because not every vote should be the same. That way you can ensure that the rural folks get MORE OF A SAY on a per-vote basis in your elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It just makes all the sense in the world, I can't see how you don't see it
I've no idea, I'm not paid to come up with these solutions. Does the EC balance out urban and rural votes?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The solution I'd be looking into is making sure that each voting area, which represents one seat, is as close to equal in population as is practical. How practical that is would be a challenge for other people. I can't be fucked to get the map out.
Lol at the electoral college being a good system.
Let's give the rural Wyoming voter more say in government than the resident of NYC. Ya, that's perfectly fair.
Ok,
So why is the US now bombing Somalia?
Trump recently watched Black Hawk Down and wants to be the hero who sorts it out. Better late than never, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Individuals do get a vote. And every vote counts. You're retarded if you think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It's pretty transparent when characterize it like that, in order to make it sound ridiculous, and then make yourself seem smart by mocking something ridiculous. Phony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
This whole idea that certain votes count "more" or "less" than others is preposterous.
How can you criticize something that solves a problem you have no idea how to solve otherwise? Yes, it does "balance" urban and rural votes, though I hate characterizing it like that. It just opens it up to phony criticism by people who are butt-hurt by the fact that the discrepancy between popular vote and EC vote went against them both times.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's exactly how it works for 80% of the electoral votes. The rest are divided equally at a rate of 2 per state.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So what's your beef?
LOL at a canuck thinking he knows better than America about anything. If you had a clue, at all, you'd move south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The "more of a vote" argument is a fallacy espoused by lazy-minded people who can't wrap their brain around the possibility of an election result inconsistent with popular vote results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It has nothing to do with 'more of a vote' or 'less of a vote'.
Jesus guys, the name of the country is the UNITED STATES. Not "PLACE RUN JUST BY STATES WITH BIG CITIES"
Pretty tough to believe this when I just saw 3 million votes not countQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So how come rural Wyoming has more voter power than urban NY? Is that just bollocks? Is it a case where "the rest" need to get their shit together like the 80%?Quote:
That's exactly how it works for 80% of the electoral votes. The rest are divided equally at a rate of 2 per state.
Well if everyone had this attitidue, we'd still be banging rocks together.Quote:
How can you criticize something that solves a problem you have no idea how to solve otherwise?
No you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Why the fuck would anyone want to move to France?Quote:
LOL at a canuck thinking he knows better than America about anything. If you had a clue, at all, you'd move south.
Hahaha I LOL'dQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If bollocks if british for retarded, bullshit, nonsense, then yesQuote:
Is that just bollocks?
I don't understand what you mean by 'get their shit together'Quote:
Is it a case where "the rest" need to get their shit together like the 80%?
I'm pretty sure that the banging-rocks method did not improve because some herb smoking cave-prick complained.Quote:
Well if everyone had this attitidue, we'd still be banging rocks together.
Maybe they really enjoy cheese. And surrendering.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why the fuck are we talking about France? Isn't Poop canadian? There's a country south of canada that's much better than France
Honestly, if the votes weren't counted, how do you know there were 3 million of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The votes were counted. They all went toward the electoral vote counts for NY and California. Cali has 55 votes and NY has 29. That means that 15% of the total electoral votes are cast by 4% of the states.
And you're telling me that it's not enough?
Get the fuck out of town
Yes this is what I mean by "bollocks". I have no idea if a Wyoming resident has a more powerful vote than someone from NY, I'm just restating what someone else said in this thread. But my understanding of the EC is that it is not balanced, that voter power is not equal, and not very close to equal. Perhaps that's just our media lying, trying to pretend that our system is great, which it isn't.Quote:
If bollocks if british for retarded, bullshit, nonsense, then yes
Well, why is 20% of the country not aligned with the other 80%? Why does 80% of the nation try to ensure voting areas are equal in population, while 20% just have a set amount of seats? That seems confusing.Quote:
I don't understand what you mean by 'get their shit together'
No, but it didn't carry on forever because it was an effective way of breaking rocks. Someone somewhere found a better way of breaking rocks. That someone must have thought "this method we're using isn't very efficient". What's the in caveman language? "ug, me bang rock better than you".Quote:
I'm pretty sure that the banging-rocks method did not improve because some herb smoking cave-prick complained.
He lives in the UK, as far as I recall.Quote:
Why the fuck are we talking about France? Isn't Poop canadian? There's a country south of canada that's much better than France
a state != populationQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I wonder, why are you talking about states? I thought you were talking about voters? Last I checked, a state can't vote. OR CAN IT?
insert x-files.mp3 here
It's really not that confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The legislative branch is divided into two bodies. The House of Representatives, and The Senate.
Each state sends representatives to the House. They are allowed 1 representative for roughly every 500,000 people. Every state gets at least 1. There's 430 something representatives in total.
The Senate is a separate legislative body with 100 members. Every state sends two, regardless of it's population.
Nothing becomes law unless it's ratified by both houses. It's actually a pretty brilliant system.
When elections come around, each state is given a number of electoral votes that corresponds to its representation in congress. Every state gets two, plus one for every 500,000 citizens.
Yes it does. Populations of people are organized into municipal units called states. Stop being a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Because that's how electoral votes are differentiated.Quote:
I wonder, why are you talking about states?
Again you're being totally phony just to make yourself look smart. You should realize that you actually look quite dumb when look to alien conspiracies simply because your brain can't comprehend the concept of a two-tiered election process.Quote:
I thought you were talking about voters? Last I checked, a state can't vote. OR CAN IT?
insert x-files.mp3 here
I'm just gonna take your word for it and bow out of this one. As far as I'm concerned, both our systems are flawed. Democracy has inherent flaws in it from the outset, not just when it comes to the equality of votes. However, democracy is also the least flawed system I'm aware of in operation today, so I can accept these flaws.Quote:
Nothing becomes law unless it's ratified by both houses. It's actually a pretty brilliant system.
I wish wuf was here to talk about the EC. He wouldn't feed me shit.
And you are apparently too dense to realize that the electoral college is a completely stupid system which is demonstrably easily manipulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Or that a two-tiered system is even more stupid than that. Assuming that your populace is too stupid to have more than two choices? Damn, that's harsh.
But it's ok, agree to disagree and move on.
Looks like someone needs to brush up on their basic math skills.
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
Cliffs: That big dark blue state just left of centre is Wyoming.
Sexy women?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was fine until democrats lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Is this the gerrymandering rant again??Quote:
which is demonstrably easily manipulated.
Why? It works just fine for passing laws.Quote:
Or that a two-tiered system is even more stupid than that.
Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot. We can handle more than two choices. It's just that the first two are usually so shitty that any third place runner could only be a joke.Quote:
Assuming that your populace is too stupid to have more than two choices? Damn, that's harsh.
To what? The Trump stuff seems to be dying down as more and more people realize that he's not a right-wing loon and that he's probably the most centrist president we've had in my lifetime.Quote:
But it's ok, agree to disagree and move on.
...and since banana lives in NH, his vote is worth 161% relative to someone who lives in NY at 88%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think we're starting to understand a lot about why America is ruled by an orange tard now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hahahaha oh shit
The problem with French women is they speak French in a French accent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fake newsQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh god.
Trump? Centrist? Definitions must have changed in the meantime
The French accent is one of the sexiest around after Italian or Spanish imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Least sexy is German, ainec.
Yeah well you're Canadian so you probably would think French is sexy, considering the Candian accent is like American mixed with Scottish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sexiest accent is Icelandic. By fucking miles. I could listen to Bjork talking forever.
Agreed when it comes to German.
lol.
pretending the popular vote elects the president.
Tell me... when did the popular vote take place?
How many of those votes counted for POTUS?
When was the president elected?
Who cast those votes?
'Nuff said.
I'm not seeing your point here. Though if I had to guess it sounds like you're a Bernie supporter still miffed about the whole super-delegate situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's not surprising you don't see my point when you haven't answered the questions.
Hint: Exactly 0 votes cast in the November election were counted in the election of POTUS.
***
Inb4 I get insulted for citing easily verifiable facts.
***
Your guess is incorrect. I support no politicians.
I only vote on issues I understand, not others, and certainly not for people who lie to my face to placate me (all politicians).
Aren't you being disingenuous and unnecessarily cynical? It's not like there were two separate elections. One informed the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you think it was a coincidence that the electoral college voted exactly how the results on election day suggested, and all 538 votes landed exactly where the Nov 6th election said they would?
Is that a coincidence? If not....what the fuck is your point?
Disingenuous? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cynical? Yes.
Unnecessarily? Maybe. I think I'm well justified in pointing out that the votes cast by American citizens are not counted for the election of POTUS, and also for calling into question what someone can possibly mean by asserting the process is democratic.
Spoiler, there were, in fact, 2 separate elections. One was in November and it didn't count. The other was in December and it did count.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not a coincidence, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not a true democracy, either.
My point is that the facts are clear. The American people's votes for POTUS are not counted.
American presidents are not elected by the American public at large. They are elected by a hand-picked group of people who have not historically voted 100% in line with their constituencies. no matter how close to 100% it is, or how well it works in theory... calling it a democratic process is misleading. The EC excercises its democratic rights, and the rest of us get to fill out the kiddy ballot.
I opt out of that kind of nonsense, and I don't see how you can pretend that your vote meant anything. Your participation in the conversation leading up to the vote mattered, but any weight you think your vote for POTUS carried is illusory.
So the democratic process isn't conducted in a way that is EXACTLY to your singular specific liking, so you completely write it off?
Seems kinda of hypocritical doesn't it? I mean, if you're such a proponent of "true democracy" then you must acknowledge that one of the consequences of the democratic process is an unhappy minority.
Now you find yourself in that minority, and you want to claim that the whole thing is fucked and just bow out?
It terrifies me that you're paid to educate people.
You're attributing ideas to me that I have not presented and do not espouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not a matter of whether or not the system meets my liking.
My vote for POTUS will not be counted, so I don't place that vote. If I were a member of the EC, I surely would place my vote.
The hypocrisy is insisting that your vote counts when the bare facts are that it does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The hypocrisy would be if I hold the belief that I do, yet I voted for POTUS anyway.
Then I would believe one thing, but my actions would represent a different belief.
I acknowledge that the main potential flaw of democracy is tyranny of the majority, but I don't think that potential flaw means it's a bad system. All systems have potential flaws. I'd rather have a system with the potential for tyranny than a system that outright is tyrannical.
What minority is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you assuming that I was a Hillary supported because I'm not a Trump supporter?
I have clearly stated that is not the case. I do not support politicians.
Seems more than a little bit skittish. I'm not teaching political science, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh stop trying to cover for yourself. We all know your lectures go something like "Ok class today we've learned that mass equals the square root of the hypotenuse and that the electoral college is a fraud. Don't forget to study for the exam."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
:(
busted
First my retirement and now this!
Curse you, bananaaaaaaaaaa!
***
I'm not sure I can imagine a situation where I'd even accept a position on the EC, by the way.
It would be perfectly hypocritical of me to do that.
***
FYI
I teach physics lab. I'm not a lecturer.
I basically give a bit of safety and equipment usage talk, and then walk around while they follow their recipes, er, lab manuals.
I fix broken stuff and offer hints and suggestions to improve their experiments.
I explain things if they don't understand, which is most of my time, really.
Your criticisms that they only ask me questions because I'm a bad lecturer don't apply. When they come for homework help and they can't even formulate a coherent sentence that states what help they need, then I give them a minute to think about it. Otherwise, I'm the guy who they flock to because I'll just do their homework and let them copy.
First semester teacher lesson. I got it.
Why are you giving him time of day, he's a cunt. He believes in AMEREICA. Look at the things he says about the uk, this is no doubt more stupid that America but it's also been around for a lot longer. He's the exact type of cunt who attempts to stop progress and making things better. I don't mean that in a liberal way either just a getting rid of bullshit nonsense tradition way of which he supports.
While I don't think I really disagree with any of this, aside from tone, you gotta remember...Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
You're a bit of a cunt, too.
And banananana has been civil in the physics thread, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt a little bit.
I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I occasionally even had fruitful conversations with spoony.
Just cause someone's a cunt, that doesn't mean I've nothing to learn from them.
I'm not a cunt and neither is spoon.
I laugh at banana's comments about the UK, because it shows he somehow thinks we're as patriotic as that bunch of drooling morons.
We're one of the most self loathing nations on the planet. Oh yeah, let's be proud of centuries of global imperial dominance, followed by a few decades of being America's little lapdog. Let's celebrate our patron saint, who, incidentally, was a Roman crusader of Greek heritage. Let's celebrate the fact that it took us a century to produce a male tennis champion, even though we invented the fucking sport. Let's celebrate our one world cup between four nations, even though we invented the fucking sport. Let's celebrate the fact that even though our language is the most spoken in the world, everyone thinks we're cunts. Which we are. Let's celebrate our teeth. Let's be proud of rain.
Fuck man, I could keep going on.
You've softened up a ton since you first started posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Your feedback in poker articles used to be scathing, man.
Spoon had a hobby of pushing buttons.
On one level, he was keeping the discussions weird.
On another level, he was being self-righteous and openly condescended to half the posters on the site.
Brings a tear to my eye... Hail Brittannia!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Must be thinking of someone else, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39651781
Fuck off nige, you don't do your job as an MEP, you've constantly said you've had enough and now this. Just let UKIP die and go back to being conservatives.
Rule Brittania, you foreign piece of shit.Quote:
Brings a tear to my eye... Hail Brittannia!
Disagree. Don't fuck off Nige.Quote:
Fuck off nige
You don't rule anything anymore you limey lime drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Seriously though, it's refreshing to live in the UK where everyone hates their own country after living in the US where there's so many jingoistic 'my country right or wrong' twits, and even Canada where most people are more or less oblivious to the idea of national feeling.
We do get a lot of hail though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok I retract my "fuck you".
You must have left a long time ago. It's considered pretty hip for Americans to hate America these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
All the cool kids are doing it.
Either WOW or LOL, depending on how you look at it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxop90W6eoE
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/12/dona...-and-pensions/
I think that Corbyn agreeing to the election shows that he is strategically ignorant and shouldn't be the Prime Minister of the country entering into a negotiation with the EU over Brexit. That negotiation is likely to be the most important thing that happens over the next couple of years and will affect the country's prosperity for the next 10-20 years at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Why should he have voted against the election ? At the moment shit is all lined up against him , half his MPs don't want him as leader of their party let alone as PM. He is massively behind May in opinion polls for who the best PM is , and his party is seen as divided because so many of his MPs don't support him resulting in a big lead for the tories in the polls.
Up to 30 Tories are supposedly under investigation by the cps for election expense fraud at the last election , assuming that 1/3 of those would be sitting MPs , some failed candidates and some party officials making up the majority, by blocking the election now , charges could then have been levied agaiinst those individuals over the summer. This would likely have resulted in suspension/resignation of the sitting MPs who get charged and bielections over the summer . The loss of 10-15 tories takes the tories Commons majority down from 22 to 7-12 and makes chances of actually blocking tory legislation possible with a wafer thin tory majority. Should bielections then result from those constituencies it could have resulted in the majority being wiped out and put Corbyn in a much stronger position being able to defeat tory legislation.
Lib Dems would no longer be able to form a coalition to prop up the tory government because of their much reduced number of MPs and them being on the remain side of brexit with the tories committed to brexit.Corbyn actually defeating government policy regularly would then strengthen his position in his party MPs eyes and also in the public's eyes.Polls would likely move in his favour and he'd be able potentially bring government down with votes of no confidence.Then he'd also have tory sleaze to campaign on in any ensuing election.
By agreeing to the elction he has allowed Theresa May to sidestep any problems resulting from election expense fraud as those MP's potentially affected may be persauded that they should not stand in this election. Sleaze accusations can be easily deflected now as there is no proof that anything wrong occured at this time and allowed May to exploit her personal /party lead over Corbyn/labour. By adopting the Brexit agenda , UKIP has now been neutralised especialy with wilingness to go the hard line on brexit if necessary to get the immigration measures they are playing to a lot of the voters who voted for brexit so a lot of UKIP votes from the last election may now move back to the tories to get that brexit legislation/negotiation pushed through. A lot of those UKIP votes switching to the tories could well end up with a much bigger majority for the Tories .By contrast some of the remain voters could well end up switching away from labour to the lib dems giving them more seats at labours expense.
The same thing could be said about Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP. By agreeing to the election she has allowed the Tories to wrap themselves in the unionist flag and put a clause in their manifesto saying that they will block any Scottish independence calls for the life of the next parliament. That then gives Scottish voters not wanting independence an outlet as a protest vote and could result in a reduced SNP number of seats. Crucially though, if the Tories do establish an increased majority due to Labours likely poor performance and insert the unionist clause in the manifesto their hopes of an Independence referendum are off the table for at least 5 years.
By waiting , and the tory prosecutions come about this summer , Tory majority disappears and tory sleaze then becomes a campaigning issue, likelyhood then is that SNP could then be necessary to labour to form a coalition government. Their price for agreeing to be coalition partners could then be getting the second independence referendum that they want.
I disagree. His hand is forced, which is why May calling the election is a masterstroke. At least assuming she wins.Quote:
I think that Corbyn agreeing to the election shows that he is strategically ignorant and shouldn't be the Prime Minister
The problem he faces is that if he doesn't agree to the election, his party will vote for it anyway. He doesn't have enough control yet to force his way. He might have had that control by 2020, and he might have stubbornly held on until then. But, he won't last until 2022 having lost an election, and he won't cleanse the party in six weeks.
Corbyn is in zugzwang. He made the best worst move.
You can go right ahead and ignore this though. Polls had remain and Clinton way ahead. Haven't you learned yet? Polls are a propaganda toolQuote:
He is massively behind May in opinion polls
I dunno about the SNP. May needed 2/3 of the house to vote with her, and she has over half outright. She doesn't need that much cross-party support, and Labour have enough Tories infiltrating them to force her way. I don't think even SNP can block it, although they have much less to lose by trying.Quote:
The same thing could be said about Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP.
yeah , but strategically she could have gone to corbyn and offered him a deal to block the election now , in return for getting a referendum once they force an election after those tories get charged and May loses her majority. The delay could only have been 6 months or so during which time very little brexit negotiation is going to get done with french and german elections potential changing what europeans want to get out of them.
Also , Corbyn could have refused quite easily by saying that the fixed term parliaments act was designed to stop precisely what May has done in trying to get an election win when she is far ahead in the polls. Labour MPs may well have backed his decision by hoping that in the meantime they may have engineered a successor.Think i read somewhere last week that david milliband had given up his job in America and could be heading back and could potentially have provided an alternative leadership candidate shoehorned in on one of the bielections that may be forced.
If Labour lurch back to the centre then I think they have less chance of ousting May. Corbyn isn't even a hard left candidate, you want hard left take a look at France. But he's traditional Labour left, and that's where they should be. Only then are they a serious alternative to the Tories.
If anyone other than Corbyn runs against May, it's a Tory landslide. As it stands, I predict a healthy majority for the Tories, but short of a landslide. I hope it's closer than I anticipate, because although I'm no fan of Corbyn, he's much more preferable to the alternatives. My hope is that there's at least 30% of the nation who agree.
I think if he tries to block the election, he faces embarrassment at the worst time possible, that's why I think he had no choice.
Why would May put the boot into him and then offer him a lifeline?Quote:
yeah , but strategically she could have gone to corbyn and offered him a deal
Sturgeon not May .......why would may want to give the scos independence ....apart from removing 50+ seats rom opposition parties at future elections.