new cold 'war'?

[taylor4]

Without going two comments to one, two news developments:
NATO's Secy. Genl. Stellenberg/USA's FM Blinken/EU's Council Prez. Von der Leyen: All on the same page and said so, all 3.
But obviously EU there are 27 nation-states, and in USA muy complicado ahora.
UK by-election, the (alleged) corrupt Tories won the contested seat of a deceased MP, but by a significantly lesser number of votes. The total vote of all votes cast in this parliamentary district was also lesser.
*
COLD WAR? It is more like a phoney war, like the period between the German blitzkrieg invasion of Poland in 1939 and the retreat from Dunkerque.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't know why the Bexley and Sidcup by-election result is supposed to have anything to do with this thread, Taylor?

[taylor4]

@ Jamiet99uk -19 allegation was made on this Thread that the UK Tory Party was or is corrupt. Good Luck!! with past & present COVID-19 Xmas fetes at #10 Downing st. The Ghost of your Dickensian Christmas Future points to the graveyard.
At this juncture it appears the principal heads of state are blah blahing about the Habsburg joke: 'The situation is a disaster, but not serious.' NO LOL

[orathaic]

I don't know if i would characteris what I said as an allegation, merely a question. It is again something i haven't been paying much attention to, so i just get a few big news stories which filter through here.

And yes, the dire positive on of the Labour party, and the inherent 2 party-ness of the system don't make it likely that change is coming any time soon.

My God the electoral system sucks...

[taylor4]

My bad. It's 'Stoltenberg'

[orathaic]

I don't know why the Bexley and Sidcup by-election result is supposed to have anything to do with this thread, Taylor?

Did i hear the lib dems won? Or was that a different by-election?

[Octavious]

I don't know why the Bexley and Sidcup by-election result is supposed to have anything to do with this thread, Taylor?

Did i hear the lib dems won? Or was that a different by-election?

That was North Shropshire. Quite an interesting result. Not because the Tories lost, as whenever you have a long standing MP leaving in disgrace it is damned tricky for an unknown associated with them to do well. But because the Lib Dems were so clearly the opposition of choice in a constituency where Labour have comfortably held number two spot in the last 3 elections, and for most of the last 30 years.

This is despite Labour seemingly actually trying to win, rather than rolling over to give the Lib Dems a clear shot... Something that has caused significant grumbling in Lib Dem circles

[taylor4]

Tories held N. Shropshire constituency some two hundred (200) years, Beeb stated.

[Octavious]

Tories held N. Shropshire constituency some two hundred (200) years, Beeb stated.

The Beeb ain't what it used to be. The North Shropshire constituency was only created in the 1980s. Makes for a nice headline, but is mostly bollocks. Since its creation the Conservatives typically achieve around 50% of the vote. They nearly lost in '97 (start of Tony Blair era) when the split was 21k Tory, 19k Labour, 10k Lib Dem.

[orathaic]

Tories held N. Shropshire constituency some two hundred (200) years, Beeb stated.

The Beeb ain't what it used to be. The North Shropshire constituency was only created in the 1980s. Makes for a nice headline, but is mostly bollocks. Since its creation the Conservatives typically achieve around 50% of the vote. They nearly lost in '97 (start of Tony Blair era) when the split was 21k Tory, 19k Labour, 10k Lib Dem.

Ok, but have the people living in the area currently represented by North Shropshire been represented by a Tory for 200 years?

(And yes, the fact that 21 : 19 : 10 split means less than 50% of the voters get 100% of the representation, is infact a problem with the first past the post electoral system... But it is what it is, ranting about it can happen elsewhere)

[Octavious]

Ok, but have the people living in the area currently represented by North Shropshire been represented by a Tory for 200 years?

Areas change. Parties change. The constituency that is currently North Shropshire didn't exist in the 1970s. The Tory Party in the 1800s doesn't much resemble the Tory Party of the 1900s or the Tory Party of the 2000s. Can you point to a town in North Shropshire that, in its various constituencies, has always had a representative calling themselves a Tory? Probably. Can you point to a town that hasn't? Probably. Does it matter? Not at all. Is the headline accurate? No.

(And yes, the fact that 21 : 19 : 10 split means less than 50% of the voters get 100% of the representation, is infact a problem with the first past the post electoral system... But it is what it is, ranting about it can happen elsewhere)

A common misunderstanding. 100% of the voters get representation because who you vote for has no impact on your MP's duty to represent you.

[orathaic]

A common misunderstanding. 100% of the voters get representation because who you vote for has no impact on your MP's duty to represent you.

Hahahaha

Tell me you actually believe that.

[Octavious]

What do you mean, "believe that"? It's like asking whether or not you believe in Thursday or whether you believe that train drivers actually drive trains. Yes, this is what happens. It's not a question of belief, and I'm at a loss to imagine where you find the room to disbelieve it.

You're perfectly entitled to question how effectively an MP carries out their duty, but what their duty actually is is not a matter of debate.

[orathaic]

You believe that people are equally represented, like their views are put forward by their representative in Parliament regardless of what those views are?

They are necessarily one person, the best they can hope to achieve is representing an average view of their constituents. But that kind of compromising doesn't win elections.

[Octavious]

People are represented. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding equal representation. In the sense that they all have the opportunity to contact their MP about a particular issue, yes. In terms of every individual having their views expressed in Parliament? What an utterly ridiculous idea.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that you don't actually know what a democracy is or what MPs are for. It seems to me that you see them as little more than than messengers that should be replaced as soon as technology allows for people to be able to vote directly in political debates.

[orathaic]

People are represented. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding equal representation.

It seems you don't know what the word represent means.

This rather makes talking to you about it difficult.

[Octavious]

People are represented. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding equal representation.

It seems you don't know what the word represent means.

This rather makes talking to you about it difficult.

No doubt you're about to tell me that it means fascism, or that it's a form of political imperialism perhaps? Or possibly something completely new