Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Since 2010, the Tories have presided over a drop in real wages, purchasing power, a rising deficit, a rising debt, a gak poor trade deficit, and a chronically imbalanced economy, that's almost flat-lining, and yet, the Tories still have the myth about them that they are good for the economy!
I was around when Black Wednesday happened, and it amazes me how short memories are in this nation...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baragash wrote: It suits the Tories to make it about Brexit so there's no scrutiny on the NHS. I emigrated from London (where I was born and raised, more of a footie pitch than a playground kid though ) to Australia after 34.5 years on this planet, and currently work for a well known global health insurance and related businesses company.
What's happening to the NHS needs to be stopped now. Private health insurance is absolute garbage, and if you think the Tories or Blairites (if they grab back control of the Labour party) will give you anything other than a similarly s**t system then you're dreaming.
This should be a single issue GE, the issue just isn't Brexit. If you take the NHS for granted now, well, you deserve everything you get in the long run.
True, the NHS isn't perfect, but the alternative is far worse.
The trouble is, even if these problems are directly due to conservative policy. It's up to the opposition to go on the offence and point this stuff out and an effective plan to deal with it, but they just don't seem credible.
If labour loses by the amount predicted, do you think Corybn will resign or just go through with another vote for labour leadership? I have a feeling he'll do the latter and his supporters will vote him in again, then the cycle continues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/08 13:39:45
We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.
Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Since 2010, the Tories have presided over a drop in real wages, purchasing power, a rising deficit, a rising debt, a gak poor trade deficit, and a chronically imbalanced economy, that's almost flat-lining, and yet, the Tories still have the myth about them that they are good for the economy!
I was around when Black Wednesday happened, and it amazes me how short memories are in this nation...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baragash wrote: It suits the Tories to make it about Brexit so there's no scrutiny on the NHS. I emigrated from London (where I was born and raised, more of a footie pitch than a playground kid though ) to Australia after 34.5 years on this planet, and currently work for a well known global health insurance and related businesses company.
What's happening to the NHS needs to be stopped now. Private health insurance is absolute garbage, and if you think the Tories or Blairites (if they grab back control of the Labour party) will give you anything other than a similarly s**t system then you're dreaming.
This should be a single issue GE, the issue just isn't Brexit. If you take the NHS for granted now, well, you deserve everything you get in the long run.
True, the NHS isn't perfect, but the alternative is far worse.
The trouble is, even if these problems are directly due to conservative policy. It's up to the opposition to go on the offence and point this stuff out and an effective plan to deal with it, but they just don't seem credible.
If labour loses by the amount predicted, do you think Corybn will resign or just go through with another vote for labour leadership? I have a feeling he'll do the latter and his supporters will vote him in again, then the cycle continues.
I get this dread feeling that even if Labour only get 100 seats or something, Corbyn will do his impression of the Black Knight from Monty Python
and his followers will vote him in again....
This Conservative party is a football in front of an open goal, and any half-decent opposition would have blasted that ball into the net by now.
That's the tragedy here
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
If you ask nationalists, unemployed or Nigel Farrage, then probably not.
But striving for higher goods is never a bad thing.
We had so many wars in Europe during the last centuries that a European nation where people can trade and move freely is the best possible answer.
We Europeans are just like Orks, if we ever united we would conquer the world but we are too busy infighting to ever realise that dream!
The problem for Remainer-Tories like me in the current election is that the opposition parties are utterly unpalatable.
Corbyn is a republican so I wouldn't vote for him in a million years and Farron hasn't done enough to convince me that he isn't one of these namby-pamby, hand wringing liberal types.
What I would like to see is a proper right of centre party fronted by Ken Clarke that properly represents conservative political thinking i.e. not crashing out of our global trading block!
Failing that, I feel that I have to vote Tory in the hope that with a large parliamentary majority Teresa May will not feel like she can be held hostage by the extreme right of the party. The thin margin of error in parliament she currently has gives these types of people a disproportionate voice imo.
If you ask nationalists, unemployed or Nigel Farrage, then probably not.
But striving for higher goods is never a bad thing.
We had so many wars in Europe during the last centuries that a European nation where people can trade and move freely is the best possible answer.
We Europeans are just like Orks, if we ever united we would conquer the world but we are too busy infighting to ever realise that dream!
The problem for Remainer-Tories like me in the current election is that the opposition parties are utterly unpalatable.
Corbyn is a republican so I wouldn't vote for him in a million years and Farron hasn't done enough to convince me that he isn't one of these namby-pamby, hand wringing liberal types.
What I would like to see is a proper right of centre party fronted by Ken Clarke that properly represents conservative political thinking i.e. not crashing out of our global trading block!
Failing that, I feel that I have to vote Tory in the hope that with a large parliamentary majority Teresa May will not feel like she can be held hostage by the extreme right of the party. The thin margin of error in parliament she currently has gives these types of people a disproportionate voice imo.
Ken Clarke is one of the few Conservatives I do like. As for you last point, I think the Conservative party is heading for trouble. The voters who left the Tories years ago for UKIP are now flocking back. They'll probably re-join the Tory party and be active at the grassroots and cause all sorts of mischief at the local level. May not be able to ignore them...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A nation or system's size alone has no bearing on whether a system is democratic or not. The EU is not less democratic just because it is big. Yes, your vote is less powerful when there are more voters, but "democracy" doesn't mean "I get my way!".
There is a lot of merit to discussing decentralization and what level various political decisions should be taken on, but trying to frame it as "more centralization=undemocratic" is lazily counting people connecting "undemocratic" to "bad" in their minds. It's a different type of democracy, sure. It might, depending on context, even be a worse form of democracy. It is, however, still a democracy. Trying to pretend otherwise is folly.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying g that the EU is a worse democracy than a nation state.
They imply that indirectly, but they imply that strongly.
People voted leave, so to the Guardian that meant they were hoodwinked on immigration, of hoodwinked by Farage, or hoodwinked on EU bureaucracy, or hoodwinked over the NHS. The repeated implication is that Leave voters wee gullible and needed shepherding away from these opinions.
No that's what you want it to say and what you are telling others to say. The same thing is at action here that is stated in the article. Changing what it means, changing the context so that others might take your interpretation as what the guardian is doing rather than letting people make up their own mind with all the information to hand.
It says nothing about being hoodwinked, it's saying that those identified by massive amounts as data as undecided or on the fence were bombarded with information in a manner that gives the impression that the Leave argument was the right argument. Both sides talked a load of rubbish but we knew what being the EU was like, everything that was said about being outside was made up and not based on any information that has not been discredited.
All made up, like all of it. Like 100%. You drank the remainer Kool-Aid.
besides when it comes to misinformation you cant top this whopper:
Not surprised you don't see it. The progressive bubble is a real phenomenon and a dangerous one. Take 'safe spacing' for example, where freedom of personal doctrine is achieved by denial of platform, and this occurs in places of education.
That's because my eyes are wide open. The reason such things exist because some groups have overtly hostile to those deemed 'Different' somehow.
This is often the safe spacer excuse. I dont ike what they are saying so lets brand them racist and then ignore their arguments or remove their platform.
Its the same psychology as a witch hunt.
It's a result of people's actions that these places were felt to be necessary. If as a populace people felt comfortable expressing views of who they were without some numbskull being homophobic, racist etc then such places wouldn't be necessary.
Its felt to be necessary due to finger pointing and scaremongering, and critics brave enough to raise objection get added to the list of the unwelcome.
In reality it's no different than a men's only golf club and so on that we have had for a long time where people self segregate.
Mens only clubs, or womens only clubs for that matter don't have that inherent dynamic, they exist because women and men have tendency towards different interests and it allows a forum of like minded people. It only becomes a problem if membership is a social enabler elsewhere.
Regional is just another type of 'local' that's a bit larger.
No its not a 'bit larger' if it was it would have enough electorate to have multiple MP's or you would need to vastly increase the number of parliamentarians.
The whole idea of an MP is that they are local, you can arrange to see them in person and they represent you because you live in the same area, not because you belong to the same party. that is not relevant.
Your MP can interfere on your behalf, and most frequently do, you dont need to be of the same party to appeal to your MP for justice in an issue, and if by listing that became expected it would cheapen parliament.
If, for example, they represent Cambridgeshire does it matter that they then cover the whole of that region rather than some arbitrary area drawn on a map? Would you not prefer to take a point to a more receptive local MP than one that might just ignore it completely because it doesn't agree with the politicians or parties views?
That is not how it works. Say you were dropped from the council housing waiting list due to a problem, or cant get benefit, or had a bad expereinece with your sisters NHS treatment it doesnt matter what party your MP belongs to. And no, actual MPs of party x are not moustache twirlers who will laugh at you because your family is of a non voter demographic and you got screwed over by the system.
What would be worse is having these facilitis parsed off by party, because that would further corrupt the system and because people dont fall into neat party boxes. get a rural multi vacancy constiuency and all the list candidates might end up electing Tories. What is a rural socialist to do then, if MP's only caters for their own.
And the idea that top list candidates are not already protected is farcical anyway those parties want just parachute them into safe seats anyway.
Parachuting should be illegal, people should live in an area for a minimum amount of time before beign alowed to stand there.
But its indicative, any system will be taken advantage of.
But even safe seats are not truly safe, public pressure can get rid of unpopular politicians in very safe seats. It doesnt happen often
With a list system it is virtually impossible to touch top list candidates in major parties.
I'm afraid that it's not just statistical noise when you can get 35% of the vote and win 55% of the seats.
It is, you need to be sufficiently popular in your local constituency to be elected. National percentages dont matter outside of a direct referendum, you can always find statistical abberations if you want to because if the way percentages work. In your system the opposite could occur a town might have representation from an MP from a party with 35% of the vote while 55% voted for a specific unsuccessful candidate, and might be faced with that representative because of support elsewhere.
If 35% of the vote goes to the party then they should get 35% of the seats plus or minus a few percent. It should not be 20% as that is just a mockery of what democracy stands for.
Our democracy means the candidate with the most local seats gets elected. You don't get a representative forced upon you because of polling elsewhere. You get the representative your community elects.
You dont understand this truth because you are still thinking party and not candidate. Candidates don't have to belong to any party, and you only ever vote for the candidate not the party in the UK. If your preferred candidate is say - Joe Smith and is a member of the say - Labour party, you never actually get to vote Labour, you get to vote for Joe Smith. You might choose to vote for Joe Smith because he is Labour, an it would be the most common reason to do so but that is your prerogative as to why you voted for Joe Smith. also people do vote for local candidates even if they would vote for another party in general. This happens rather a lot, and not just from tactical voting. This is what it means to be a local representative.
Everything to do with the % is really just noise, with one exception if the % of votes for Joe Smith is more than any other candidate, the seat is theirs.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A nation or system's size alone has no bearing on whether a system is democratic or not. The EU is not less democratic just because it is big. Yes, your vote is less powerful when there are more voters, but "democracy" doesn't mean "I get my way!".
There is a lot of merit to discussing decentralization and what level various political decisions should be taken on, but trying to frame it as "more centralization=undemocratic" is lazily counting people connecting "undemocratic" to "bad" in their minds. It's a different type of democracy, sure. It might, depending on context, even be a worse form of democracy. It is, however, still a democracy. Trying to pretend otherwise is folly.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying g that the EU is a worse democracy than a nation state.
You're right, you aren't. Welshhoppo, on the other hand, was.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
wuestenfux wrote: For the European idea, the election of Macron is absolutely great.
The EU is not only a coalition of countries in economic terms, its a project whose aim is the integration of the European people. This is what the EU is about.
But is this what the people of Europe want?
Given that 50% of the UK populace voted to stay in Europe and the categorical smashing of nationalist suggestions in both Netherlands and France, Greece voting to stay in despite its debt I think we can say given the evidence that at the moment the answer to this is a definite Yes!
I think it's because they actually regard Corbyn as so little a threat, that they don't have to brief against him. Why engage in a public debate when May might not be good at it, or even just have a bad day? Why put up a detailed manifesto when yours is likely paper thing and might inspire awkward questions? Just keep hammering on the obvious point (that Corbyn is bloody inept), point to the Brexit negotiations as the top priority (which they quite possible are, in all fairness), and otherwise keep schtum.
I wonder though what would happen if Corbyn announced a half a week before the GE that he will stand down regardless of the outcome of the vote. That could put the Tories on the back foot as all the attacks on Corbyn would be 'wasted' and the one thing that is turning off a lot of Labour support is him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/08 17:57:52
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
No debate for us. Just a series of set questions and low balls thrown the the leaders individually.
They really are pathetic, no gumption, no guts. We all want to see them go head to head, but TM especially says she'd rather 'meet voters directly', meaning stage managed events where the public and press are kept out.
@ Whirlwind Technicaly Greeks voted against the EU proposal by a large margin. Thankfully our PM realised what was going on broke with some of the lunatics of his party and promptly raised the EU flag high ignoring the referendum.
Note that I voted for him mostly because the opposition are crooks.
You shouldn't be worried about the one bullet with your name on it, Boldric. You should be worried about the ones labelled "to whom it may concern"-from Blackadder goes Forth!
Yeesh - Could you at least spoiler this type of text writing, it's not convenient for a lot of people. Either put arguments in larger paragraphs or summarise what you are saying more.
Brexit is on the way and no mass mobilisations or mushroom clouds threatened. Looks like they were wrong.
So let me get this straight, you are arguing that an opinion article in the guardian stating that there are wealthy people in locations are oblivious to the plight of the low paid and why they voted to leave and that a report *in another paper* on what DC said is evidence that the Guardian thinks all Leavers are idiots? That sounds a very surreal argument. The former is even suggesting that some peoples views on Leavers is counter productive because it is not acknowledging the issues that caused such a backlash in the first place. The latter is an article from a different paper reporting on what DC stated so how does that make the Guardian think everyone that voted Leave is an idiot?
On what basis then is the Guardian article made up. They have provided where they have the evidence from and noted where some couldn't be published. On what basis and evidence can you provide that it was made up (and not just because "You say so") otherwise you are just trying to ignore what is being reported. In some ways this is just as bad as some Remainers calling Leavers 'idiots' as you as a Leaver are just calling some Remainers 'liars' or (paraphrasing) deluded.
This is often the safe spacer excuse. I dont ike what they are saying so lets brand them racist and then ignore their arguments or remove their platform.
Its the same psychology as a witch hunt.
Its felt to be necessary due to finger pointing and scaremongering, and critics brave enough to raise objection get added to the list of the unwelcome.
Your response implies a lack of empathy. Suppose you were part of a group that everyday when you walked out the door your don't know when some obnoxious person starts hurling abuse just because of the way you lived your life. Not everyone wants to mentally prepare themselves to try and fight off a verbal (or even physical) assault because of the way they live their life. It doesn't affect me, you or the random nutter next door how they live their life and it is never and excuse for hassling people over they way they live. 'Safe spaces' are there so people know they have somewhere they can go for some time to avoid having to even worry about being accosted because of their lifestyle, how they look or the language they speak. It shouldn't be necessary but it appears some have developed in society to a point where we think it is acceptable to stick our oar into another persons life just because it doesn't coincide with that persons view of the world. Ask yourself whether you would find it acceptable that if you went to a pub for a beer that every tenth person that walked past slated you for having that beer.
No its not a 'bit larger' if it was it would have enough electorate to have multiple MP's or you would need to vastly increase the number of parliamentarians.
The whole idea of an MP is that they are local, you can arrange to see them in person and they represent you because you live in the same area, not because you belong to the same party. that is not relevant.
Your MP can interfere on your behalf, and most frequently do, you dont need to be of the same party to appeal to your MP for justice in an issue, and if by listing that became expected it would cheapen parliament.
Parachuting should be illegal, people should live in an area for a minimum amount of time before beign alowed to stand there.
Then you can apply the same principle to PR regional representation. You would still get a local person from the area and you would also get someone whose views are more likely to align to your own. If you are affected by the bedroom tax how likely is that a Tory MP would actually take this up in any meaningful way when they voted for those same changes. You are much more likely to get a better response and someone who will take it further that also reviles the policy?
It is, you need to be sufficiently popular in your local constituency to be elected. National percentages dont matter outside of a direct referendum, you can always find statistical abberations if you want to because if the way percentages work. In your system the opposite could occur a town might have representation from an MP from a party with 35% of the vote while 55% voted for a specific unsuccessful candidate, and might be faced with that representative because of support elsewhere.
A statistical aberration is when there is a freak result outside the norm (likely 3-5 sigma result, i.e. occurs less than 1/1000 - 1/10000). Consistently having the same result where proportion of votes cast is 20% or so different to the number of seats awarded is not a statistical aberration because it's consistently occurring - this makes it statistical likelihood within the 3 sigma result. What that then implies is that there is a weighting or bias in how the data is being taken. A healthy democratic process ensures that the overall the populaces preference for the parties is roughly equivalent to the number of seats they have. The idea that people generally vote for the candidate they like the most is rather farcical given the Tories current election Manifesto which is made of all of six words of "Strong and Stable" and "Corbyn is rubbish".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
konst80hummel wrote: @ Whirlwind Technicaly Greeks voted against the EU proposal by a large margin. Thankfully our PM realised what was going on broke with some of the lunatics of his party and promptly raised the EU flag high ignoring the referendum.
Note that I voted for him mostly because the opposition are crooks.
I thought they had a second vote though after the first where they were given the option of vote for me, the EU, and the bailout or else lets the tides decide?
No debate for us. Just a series of set questions and low balls thrown the the leaders individually.
They really are pathetic, no gumption, no guts. We all want to see them go head to head, but TM especially says she'd rather 'meet voters directly', meaning stage managed events where the public and press are kept out.
TMs a coward when it comes to actually talking to the public and whenever some does get a word in edge ways she just plays the tape recording for them. Still a coward is just what we need for debates over our ties with the EU isn't it
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/08 18:48:57
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
She has nothing to gain from slugging it out with Corbs, so she is avoiding it. It's tactical.
But that would imply she is scared of losing ground because she *might* be skewered over any number of issues. That makes her a political coward at best and implies a lack of confidence in her own ability to stand by her policies. That is not a good implication for the future health of our country - and we already have seen what happens when she doesn't get here own way, she has a massive playground strop.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
But that would imply she is scared of losing ground because she *might* be skewered over any number of issues. That makes her a political coward at best and implies a lack of confidence in her own ability to stand by her policies. That is not a good implication for the future health of our country - and we already have seen what happens when she doesn't get here own way, she has a massive playground strop.
She's an opportunist. But we already knew that from the way she came to power. Being a good opportunist is not necessarily a bad thing either, minimising risk and only taking calculated chances is not a negative trait.
You talk about being a political coward in much the same way as a newbie might deride another soldier on the battlefield for not being willing to run into machine gun fire to take an objective. If she's guaranteed to take nothing but political bullets and the objective is worthless or can be claimed for less damage by waiting for the tactical position to change, it makes perfect sense to hunker down instead.
Frankly, I would argue that practically all good politicians are good opportunists to a lesser degree. Corbyn is a dead threat. Any damage incurred by a handful of media headlines screeching about 'political cowardice' will be forgotten in short order if it means she gets a new full term.
Note that I personally believe it is a point of politicial professionalism and respect to the country that she should stand up in public with the opposition leader at least once anyway. I just think it is a mistake to equate a refusal to do so as 'cowardice', it does make perfectly good sense from her angle.
But that would imply she is scared of losing ground because she *might* be skewered over any number of issues. That makes her a political coward at best and implies a lack of confidence in her own ability to stand by her policies. That is not a good implication for the future health of our country - and we already have seen what happens when she doesn't get here own way, she has a massive playground strop.
She's an opportunist. But we already knew that from the way she came to power. Being a good opportunist is not necessarily a bad thing either, minimising risk and only taking calculated chances is not a negative trait.
You talk about being a political coward in much the same way as a newbie might deride another soldier on the battlefield for not being willing to run into machine gun fire to take an objective. If she's guaranteed to take nothing but political bullets and the objective is worthless or can be claimed for less damage by waiting for the tactical position to change, it makes perfect sense to hunker down instead.
Frankly, I would argue that practically all good politicians are good opportunists to a lesser degree. Corbyn is a dead threat. Any damage incurred by a handful of media headlines screeching about 'political cowardice' will be forgotten in short order if it means she gets a new full term.
Note that I personally believe it is a point of politicial professionalism and respect to the country that she should stand up in public with the opposition leader at least once anyway. I just think it is a mistake to equate a refusal to do so as 'cowardice', it does make perfectly good sense from her angle.
She never rose from the back benches to running thr country by not being a skilled tactician and taking calculated risks to take down opponents and gain allies alike.
She neutralised Borris with good tactics, beat multiple leadership rivals and was a home secretary for years. A job that's not easiest to hold.
She not a coward, she however a solid strategist.
Seems alot more strategic than Corbyn anyway.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Orlanth wrote: If FPTP was acceptable in 1997 it is acceptable today.
Lib Dems would love it if it benefited them.
FPTP has a superior feature, it separates each component of the election down to is individual MP. The UK system doesn't have people directly voting for party x or party y, they vote for their local representative MP.
This is inherently fair as it parses out democracy to where it should be to an MP and the geographical area they are accountable to.
You talk about being a political coward in much the same way as a newbie might deride another soldier on the battlefield for not being willing to run into machine gun fire to take an objective. If she's guaranteed to take nothing but political bullets and the objective is worthless or can be claimed for less damage by waiting for the tactical position to change, it makes perfect sense to hunker down instead.
Except taking the analogy further it's like May is riding around in a tank, why Corbyn is running around with a club and loin cloth and grunting once in a while. However she is still the PM so she should have the strength of character to believe in the policies she stands by. By hiding she both displays a lack of disdain for the populace at large and actually allowing them to put questions to her. Either she does not believe in her own ability to discuss things with the populace, to persuade them that her arguments are correct; or that she does not believe in her own policies. Either way she is avoiding the situation simply because she knows that she could go on holiday for 6 weeks and still win the election. However whether you want to call it political opportunism it is still cowardice to an extent because it's fear of getting things so badly wrong that she loses (literally she'd have to call everyone morons continuously for this to happen). It might work with enough of the populace but it does not provide optimism that when she comes across other people that really do believe in what they stand for and can articulate it clearly then May is no longer going to be able to hide. If she fears the ability to persuade the populace then she is simply going to be outmatched and outgunned when it comes to the EU.
She never rose from the back benches to running thr country by not being a skilled tactician and taking calculated risks to take down opponents and gain allies alike.
She neutralised Borris with good tactics, beat multiple leadership rivals and was a home secretary for years. A job that's not easiest to hold.
She not a coward, she however a solid strategist.
Seems alot more strategic than Corbyn anyway.
Her approach was more sit on the side at the OK Corral and when the bullets and smoke cleared she waltzed in shot the wounded survivors and then declared victory. She got to where she was not by some clever strategy, but letting other people hang themselves and then move in with squatters rights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/08 21:32:59
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
You talk about being a political coward in much the same way as a newbie might deride another soldier on the battlefield for not being willing to run into machine gun fire to take an objective. If she's guaranteed to take nothing but political bullets and the objective is worthless or can be claimed for less damage by waiting for the tactical position to change, it makes perfect sense to hunker down instead.
Except taking the analogy further it's like May is riding around in a tank, why Corbyn is running around with a club and loin cloth and grunting once in a while. However she is still the PM so she should have the strength of character to believe in the policies she stands by. By hiding she both displays a lack of disdain for the populace at large and actually allowing them to put questions to her. Either she does not believe in her own ability to discuss things with the populace, to persuade them that her arguments are correct; or that she does not believe in her own policies. Either way she is avoiding the situation simply because she knows that she could go on holiday for 6 weeks and still win the election. However whether you want to call it political opportunism it is still cowardice to an extent because it's fear of getting things so badly wrong that she loses (literally she'd have to call everyone morons continuously for this to happen). It might work with enough of the populace but it does not provide optimism that when she comes across other people that really do believe in what they stand for and can articulate it clearly then May is no longer going to be able to hide. If she fears the ability to persuade the populace then she is simply going to be outmatched and outgunned when it comes to the EU.
She never rose from the back benches to running thr country by not being a skilled tactician and taking calculated risks to take down opponents and gain allies alike.
She neutralised Borris with good tactics, beat multiple leadership rivals and was a home secretary for years. A job that's not easiest to hold.
She not a coward, she however a solid strategist.
Seems alot more strategic than Corbyn anyway.
Her approach was more sit on the side at the OK Corral and when the bullets and smoke cleared she waltzed in shot the wounded survivors and then declared victory. She got to where she was not by some clever strategy, but letting other people hang themselves and then move in with squatters rights.
However you see, she did it. She made it to top past alot of capable challengers.
If letting your opponents waste ammo, deplete there own strengh before making your move. Then that's a valid strategy.
Why not let others weaken before you make your move. Its good strategy to not waste your own "troops" as it where and let another do some of the fighting for you.
It worked for William the Conqueror.
He was crowned king that way. Harolds force had spent its strengh already somewhat, William was fresh.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Either way she is avoiding the situation simply because she knows that she could go on holiday for 6 weeks and still win the election. However whether you want to call it political opportunism it is still cowardice to an extent because it's fear of getting things so badly wrong that she loses (literally she'd have to call everyone morons continuously for this to happen).
I don't even think it's that. There has to be a literal prize to be acquired to make it worth sticking your head over the political parapet, something to seize out and storm and claim. In this situation, there isn't. There is literally nothing to be acquired, only things to be lost. Whether the harm potentially incurred is great or minimal, it's harm incurred for no purpose.
So she's not bothering because there's nothing to gain, and potentially up to everything to lose. Who in their right minds would? I think she should from a professional standpoint, but in her shoes, I'm not sure I would either. It would be terrible strategy. If there was any real chance of this election going doolally, she'd never have called it. With that in mind, why risk any form of reputational damage like Broon/Duffy that you don't have to?
You call it cowardice, but I'm sure any Dark Eldar or Alpha Legion player out there would call it pure pragmatism.
Her approach was more sit on the side at the OK Corral and when the bullets and smoke cleared she waltzed in shot the wounded survivors and then declared victory. She got to where she was not by some clever strategy, but letting other people hang themselves and then move in with squatters rights.
Eh, half and half. She would have been balancing Cameron and Osborne's demand she involve herself with the remain campaign on one hand, and her own personal views (which I have heard were ever so slightly leaning towards the leave side) next to the political flak being thrown out by the Leave campaign on the other. Which was no doubt mildly nervewracking, usually when the PM demands his Cabinet get in there, there's a certain degree of obligation.
So she submarined, which is apparently something she wasn't unknown for doing before. The posh boys generally ignored her because they only ever included her as a token woman anyway, and she wasn't exactly such a charismatic figure that Leave went out of their way to recruit her. Then Cameron took his toys and ran away, Gove fell on his own sword, Leadsom was very clearly outed as lying on her own CV (and being a bit clueless otherwise), and Osborne knew he had no hope ascending just yet in Cameron's footsteps. None of that was any real accomplishment on her part.
Bojo though? That was a very canny bit of politicking. If she screws up every other political decision she ever makes, her effective removal of Bojo from the field remains a masterstroke.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/08 22:33:54
I disagree, TM is playing the Strong unt Stable card for all its worth. If she's so strong, then she could easily demonstrate that.
Besides, her actions reek of weakness and cowardice. She's flip flopped several times over issues, and she backs down when confronted. The EU must be quite pleased she's heading up negotiations, they'll be able to push her around like a play doh.
Corbyn, on the other hand is made of sterner stuff. He's batting off vitriolic attacks daily, from every direction and has stuck by his principles throughout his career, no matter what.
Personally, I know who I'd rather have sitting across the table from Michel Barnier.
And another point, look at their priorities. We know, for a fact that the Tories will go in to defend the rights of big business and their friends interests, and will sell us down the river.
Corbyn will genuinely be battling for the people of the UK, because that's what he genuinely believes in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/09 06:55:38
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
You're a boxer, it's round 12. Youre way up on points, do you risk it all to go charging in and slug it for a potential knockout? While putting yourselves at danger at being knocked out yourself? Or you stay back and keep doing what you're doing, knowing your going to win anyway?
Thinking like that is how Apollo Creed lost the Heavyweight title back in 1977.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Having bravery, and guts, and strengh is one thing.
Having strategy is quite another. If TM can win without having to take excess risk, falling into traps and such. She will. She is not the shiny showman like Cameran was, or some of his allies.
Different tactics and approaches favor different people.
Plus the time Corbyn has to mount various defenses, defend self and party is time he not election working.
All the time he battling internal he ain't getting external and fighting this election.
B - its generally accepted policy the opposition leader or sitting who loses resigns out of responsibility.
(there suggesting he may hang on in even after losing a election)
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I'm not generally a fan of the whole resign once you lose thing as a role. In saying that, depending on the scale of loss it might be a good idea for Corbyn. But it could very well be a car is not right now as opposed to "we as a nation reject your policies."
This is speaking generally though and not in reference to current events.
Compel wrote: I'm not generally a fan of the whole resign once you lose thing as a role. In saying that, depending on the scale of loss it might be a good idea for Corbyn. But it could very well be a car is not right now as opposed to "we as a nation reject your policies."
This is speaking generally though and not in reference to current events.
If he can at least hold or keep losses minimal, he could hang on saying he halted the rout and held at least a party who can effectively oppose.
If he takes heavy losses then yes. Also for sake of party as if he does the MP's are gonna go for blood on him with renewed vigour.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
She has nothing to gain from slugging it out with Corbs, so she is avoiding it. It's tactical.
So that's why she's also avoiding the press and the public?
Her entire campaign seems to be to hide from everyone and bash Corbyn. To me it seems like she or her puppeteer are terrified of letting her lose to screw up again. That she's more of a liability by talking to the public instead of hiding from them.
But then she got where she was by staying quiet whilst everyone else kept shooting themselves in the foot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/09 08:14:22
r_squared wrote: errrr.... She's flip flopped several times over issues, and she backs down when confronted. The EU must be quite pleased she's heading up negotiations, they'll be able to push her around like a play doh.
Corbyn, on the other hand is made of sterner stuff. He's batting off vitriolic attacks daily, from every direction and has stuck by his principles throughout his career, no matter what.
I think, perhaps, we have very different perceptions of the woman. But that's fine.
And another point, look at their priorities. We know, for a fact that the Tories will go in to defend the rights of big business and their friends interests, and will sell us down the river.
.......this though.....really? The same old 'evil Tories are here to line their friends pockets' malarkey? I'm getting really tired of challenging this particular (and exceedingly sloppy) conspiracy theory. I honestly don't know if I can bother to do it a third time.
She has nothing to gain from slugging it out with Corbs, so she is avoiding it. It's tactical.
So that's why she's also avoiding the press and the public?
Her entire campaign seems to be to hide from everyone and bash Corbyn. To me it seems like she or her puppeteer are terrified of letting her lose to screw up again. That she's more of a liability by talking to the public instead of hiding from them.
But then she got where she was by staying quiet whilst everyone else kept shooting themselves in the foot.
Yeah, during the EU referendum, they nick named May 'The Submarine.'
It's all in Tim Shipman's book, which I would recommend to anybody if they want to find out what went on behind the scenes last year.
Bojo really is useless. Gove IS a weasel of the highest order, and Osborne surprisingly, seems to be the only one who knew what he was doing at the time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/09 13:17:41
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Compel wrote: I'm not generally a fan of the whole resign once you lose thing as a role. In saying that, depending on the scale of loss it might be a good idea for Corbyn. But it could very well be a car is not right now as opposed to "we as a nation reject your policies."
This is speaking generally though and not in reference to current events.
If he can at least hold or keep losses minimal, he could hang on saying he halted the rout and held at least a party who can effectively oppose.
If he takes heavy losses then yes. Also for sake of party as if he does the MP's are gonna go for blood on him with renewed vigour.
Expect to see Corbyn do his Black Knight impression after June. I'm tempted to join Labour myself after June 8th, because at the rate of Corbyn's cabinet shuffles, I'll be Shadow Welsh secretary within days
You're a boxer, it's round 12. Youre way up on points, do you risk it all to go charging in and slug it for a potential knockout? While putting yourselves at danger at being knocked out yourself? Or you stay back and keep doing what you're doing, knowing your going to win anyway?
Thinking like that is how Apollo Creed lost the Heavyweight title back in 1977.
They had 15 rounds back then
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/09 13:20:49
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Corbyn doesn't care if he loses the election and all those within the party who oppose him jump ship. He would be much happier to convert the party into an ideologically pure echo chamber for himself than actually aim to lead the country.
) to Australia after 34.5 years on this planet, and currently work for a well known global health insurance and related businesses company.
useless. Gove IS a weasel of the highest order, and Osborne surprisingly, seems to be the only one who knew what he was doing at the time.
