So you can't address my points so you're just going to be rude. Speaks volumes, I've been polite to you, even want you to get your ambition. Nevermind, once you get over losing last week's election you will calm down I'm sure.
How many times does he have to tell you he ignores your posts?!
That's a logical fallacy.
I replied to a reply to my post. Replying is not ignoring. Telling someone "I am ignoring your posts" is by definition not ignoring their post, simply not responding at all is ignoring it.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
So you can't address my points so you're just going to be rude. Speaks volumes, I've been polite to you, even want you to get your ambition. Nevermind, once you get over losing last week's election you will calm down I'm sure.
How many times does he have to tell you he ignores your posts?!
That's a logical fallacy.
I replied to a reply to my post. Replying is not ignoring. Telling someone "I am ignoring your posts" is by definition not ignoring their post, simply not responding at all is ignoring it.
Mr Endillion: It is nothing to do with being a "remainer" unless you are a complete Brexit obsessed myopic dipstick...(oh hang on, I have seen some of your previous posts!).
Sorry you didn't understand my points regarding the weaknesses in our so-called democracy, but the only relevance to your schoolboy obsession with Brexit was regarding the dumb pastime of some Brexiteers to bang on about "democracy". I am sure there must be a book out there called the British Constitution for Dummies/ Brexit supporters. Look up some of the stuff, it can be quite interesting to understand why a lot of the real political establishment want people to focus on Europe rather than the actual deficiencies in our constitution.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. The 'Unionist' party of SLab now has several elected and prominent members who have spoken out in favour of Scotland having a second indy ref though they say they would campaign to stay in the union.
Indeed that's true Labour are much more open to the idea of Scotland going independent and next time Labour get into Downing Street I fully expect there to be a second Indendence Referendum.
If Labour ever get back into Downing Street, it'll be from someone from the sane wing of the Labour party, who are much more unionist than the Corbynites. Labour party members who are sympathetic to Scottish independence are generally pro-Corbyn. Corbynsceptics north and south of the border on the other hand view the SNP with contempt (see Nandy's comments about Indyref2 the other day).
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
I've been asking this all week, and apparently it's because Thornberry is a traitor to the cause, because she went off message on Brexit, and is now I-Told-You-So-ing about it.
Starmer somehow got away with this, even though he theoretically (although obviously not in practice) was in charge of the offending policy.
FWIW I think they're both horribly mispriced, in the directions you indicate, and have bet accordingly.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Technically it's not repeated unless you can give at least two examples, and the second is currently the subject of potential legal action. So, er, be careful I guess?
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
You have every right to express your views but I do wish you would make yourself a little more informed before you exercise that right. The House of Lords and the Monarchy have huge symbolic and practical importance in our constitution, and they are, whether you like them or not, fundamentally undemocratic . You also fail to address my central point; persons such as yourself trying to portray the EU as somehow being less democratic while not noticing the beam in our own eye. This makes you look either massively biased, rather silly or perhaps both.
Well lets see.
House of Lords - Can be overriden by the Parliament Act. I would support democratic reform or abolition of this and always have done. Monarchy - Symbolic only, but I am a republican and want to see it get abolished.
What beam am I missing precisely?
I had forgotten you are a right wing nihilist, but you are at least consistent, though you seem very pleased about the Johnson victory for someone who has no belief in Conservative principles. Your suggestion that the EU was less democratic than the UK still doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even by someone with the most rudimentary understanding of what democracy is, or can be.
Mr Endillion: It is nothing to do with being a "remainer" unless you are a complete Brexit obsessed myopic dipstick...(oh hang on, I have seen some of your previous posts!).
Sorry you didn't understand my points regarding the weaknesses in our so-called democracy, but the only relevance to your schoolboy obsession with Brexit was regarding the dumb pastime of some Brexiteers to bang on about "democracy". I am sure there must be a book out there called the British Constitution for Dummies/ Brexit supporters. Look up some of the stuff, it can be quite interesting to understand why a lot of the real political establishment want people to focus on Europe rather than the actual deficiencies in our constitution.
Dipsticks are measuring devices. They allow you to understand more about the true underlying state of an object of interest.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Yes, my question is why would centrist Labourites prefer Starmer to Emily? The betting has him at 27% chance and her about 3%. I thought they are broadly similar politicans, with if anything, Thornberry being a better tv performer, more well known and the upper hand in being female
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
I agree, but now and again, surely...?
Now and again if you back the one most of your neighbours back. If you don't, then don't blame the system.
The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.
Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.
I'd put money on Trump's re-election.
I agree entirely - Trump can hardly believe his luck.
My view from America is that impeachment is barely even noticed, not least because the big news event is the Senate trial... And it's entirely possible that that is indefinitely postponed.
I was there this week and watched some of the reporting in the lounge yesterday evening. It’s baked in that the Senate will vote on party lines (with both sides claiming look at the evidence when neither is interested in objectivity) and the media is reporting it as such.
The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.
Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.
I'd put money on Trump's re-election.
I agree entirely - Trump can hardly believe his luck.
My view from America is that impeachment is barely even noticed, not least because the big news event is the Senate trial... And it's entirely possible that that is indefinitely postponed.
I was there this week and watched some of the reporting in the lounge yesterday evening. It’s baked in that the Senate will vote on party lines (with both sides claiming look at the evidence when neither is interested in objectivity) and the media is reporting it as such.
You have every right to express your views but I do wish you would make yourself a little more informed before you exercise that right. The House of Lords and the Monarchy have huge symbolic and practical importance in our constitution, and they are, whether you like them or not, fundamentally undemocratic . You also fail to address my central point; persons such as yourself trying to portray the EU as somehow being less democratic while not noticing the beam in our own eye. This makes you look either massively biased, rather silly or perhaps both.
Well lets see.
House of Lords - Can be overriden by the Parliament Act. I would support democratic reform or abolition of this and always have done. Monarchy - Symbolic only, but I am a republican and want to see it get abolished.
What beam am I missing precisely?
I had forgotten you are a right wing nihilist, but you are at least consistent, though you seem very pleased about the Johnson victory for someone who has no belief in Conservative principles. Your suggestion that the EU was less democratic than the UK still doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even by someone with the most rudimentary understanding of what democracy is, or can be.
I'm not a nihilist, I'm a classical liberal (aka nowadays a neoliberal or Libertarian). I don't have conservative (soft c) principles myself, so don't care if Johnson doesn't either. Johnson does share Conservative (hard C) principles I share.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Yes, my question is why would centrist Labourites prefer Starmer to Emily? The betting has him at 27% chance and her about 3%. I thought they are broadly similar politicans, with if anything, Thornberry being a better tv performer, more well known and the upper hand in being female
Yes, I agree for all the above reasons. I think Thornberry being better on TV, more well known and female means she is an absolute bargain at current prices and I have bet accordingly.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Yes, my question is why would centrist Labourites prefer Starmer to Emily? The betting has him at 27% chance and her about 3%. I thought they are broadly similar politicans, with if anything, Thornberry being a better tv performer, more well known and the upper hand in being female
Probably because there's an understanding - even amongst the most staunch Europhiles - that we need to regain working class leave voters who went Tory, and the best place to begin is not to elect someone leader who sneers at people who put England flags outside their window and *allegedly* tells an MP that she's glad her constituents aren't as stupid as theirs.
The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.
Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.
I'd put money on Trump's re-election.
I agree entirely - Trump can hardly believe his luck.
My view from America is that impeachment is barely even noticed, not least because the big news event is the Senate trial... And it's entirely possible that that is indefinitely postponed.
I was there this week and watched some of the reporting in the lounge yesterday evening. It’s baked in that the Senate will vote on party lines (with both sides claiming look at the evidence when neither is interested in objectivity) and the media is reporting it as such.
Mitch McConnell hasn't said that. He has said he is not an impartial juror outright, in direct contravention of his inauguration oath. Everything the Democrats have said is consistent with the facts.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Yes, my question is why would centrist Labourites prefer Starmer to Emily? The betting has him at 27% chance and her about 3%. I thought they are broadly similar politicans, with if anything, Thornberry being a better tv performer, more well known and the upper hand in being female
What evidence is there she is well known for the right rather than the wrong reasons?
I'm not a nihilist, I'm a classical liberal (aka nowadays a neoliberal or Libertarian). I don't have conservative (soft c) principles myself, so don't care if Johnson doesn't either. Johnson does share Conservative (hard C) principles I share.
You have no clue if Johnson shares your principles. Nobody does for the simple reason that he only has one - personal brand promotion - and it mutates as appropriate depending on circumstances.
We are about to perform a very interesting experiment - one that to the best of my recall is unique in modern times as far as this country goes. We have a PM with real power who cares not a flying fuck for anything but himself.
It may work out fine or it may not. There is no inevitability either way. Probably it will be something in the middle. Most things are, let's face it. But I caution you not to get caught up in his windy rhetoric. Watch what he does.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
I've been asking this all week, and apparently it's because Thornberry is a traitor to the cause, because she went off message on Brexit, and is now I-Told-You-So-ing about it.
Starmer somehow got away with this, even though he theoretically (although obviously not in practice) was in charge of the offending policy.
FWIW I think they're both horribly mispriced, in the directions you indicate, and have bet accordingly.
Thornberry was the heir apparent once. But she betrayed Sainted Jeremy and so is unclean. She's too left for the centre. Stamer is the clear candidate of the Centre unless anyone else throws their hat in the ring. If another 'centerist' steps up (and I know Starmer hasn't officially announced yet but he's totally gonna) then his price should shoot way out.
I have no idea what the true prices should be but the price rollercoaster has been profitable so far.
Why is Keir Starmer rated as a better leadership prospect than Emily Thornberry in the betting?
Probably because Keir Starmer never insulted people who fly flags. Thornberry would be much higher rated if it wasn't for her repeated self-inflicted gaffes.
Though we're betting on who Labour members will choose rather than who the great unwashed would vote for.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Yes, my question is why would centrist Labourites prefer Starmer to Emily? The betting has him at 27% chance and her about 3%. I thought they are broadly similar politicans, with if anything, Thornberry being a better tv performer, more well known and the upper hand in being female
I agree, and she has actually said she is standing which must be a concern for those backing at 27% with no guarantee he doesnt go for deputy leader or just sits it out.
And utterly wrong on Brexit. Cost his party dozens of seats. But in the culture that rewards failure......
I'm with Robert Smithson and Blair here, in that I don't think adopting a pro-leave position would have done Labour much good. We'd just have leaked votes to the Lib Dems. Going forward, though, it's clear we can't be an immediate rejoin party, so as long Starmer recognises that, I don't think he'd necessarily be a disaster.
I'm not a nihilist, I'm a classical liberal (aka nowadays a neoliberal or Libertarian). I don't have conservative (soft c) principles myself, so don't care if Johnson doesn't either. Johnson does share Conservative (hard C) principles I share.
You have no clue if Johnson shares your principles. Nobody does for the simple reason that he only has one - personal brand promotion - and it mutates as appropriate depending on circumstances.
We are about to perform a very interesting experiment - one that to the best of my recall is unique in modern times as far as this country goes. We have a PM with real power who cares not a flying fuck for anything but himself.
It may work out fine or it may not. There is no inevitability either way. Probably it will be something in the middle. Most things are, let's face it. But I caution you not to get caught up in his windy rhetoric. Watch what he does.
You claim he cares for himself, though all politicians do. I can't see how you can use that tag more for Johnson than you can eg Tony Blair or David Cameron.
I do have indications as to his principles, because he's been active in journalism and politics for decades and has rather consistently been a liberal Conservative like myself.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
I agree, but now and again, surely...?
Now and again if you back the one most of your neighbours back. If you don't, then don't blame the system.
Why not ? The system disproportionally rewards the largest party/parties, and ensures large parts of the electorate have no effective representation of their views in Parliament.
And utterly wrong on Brexit. Cost his party dozens of seats. But in the culture that rewards failure......
I'm with Robert Smithson and Blair here, in that I don't think adopting a pro-leave position would have done Labour much good. We'd just have leaked votes to the Lib Dems. Going forward, though, it's clear we can't be an immediate rejoin party, so as long Starmer recognises that, I don't think he'd necessarily be a disaster.
Labours mistake was not going for a soft Brexit through either the indicative votes or at the end of Mays leadership and taking credit for both getting it done with leavers and protecting us from a hard brexit with remainers.
I'm not a nihilist, I'm a classical liberal (aka nowadays a neoliberal or Libertarian). I don't have conservative (soft c) principles myself, so don't care if Johnson doesn't either. Johnson does share Conservative (hard C) principles I share.
You have no clue if Johnson shares your principles. Nobody does for the simple reason that he only has one - personal brand promotion - and it mutates as appropriate depending on circumstances.
We are about to perform a very interesting experiment - one that to the best of my recall is unique in modern times as far as this country goes. We have a PM with real power who cares not a flying fuck for anything but himself.
It may work out fine or it may not. There is no inevitability either way. Probably it will be something in the middle. Most things are, let's face it. But I caution you not to get caught up in his windy rhetoric. Watch what he does.
In a democracy, I'd far rather a PM who only cares for himself than an ideologue.
Ideologues are dangerous, they want to change things, they want to reshape society. That is precisely why Corbyn was dangerous. He wanted to experiment with a kind of radical socialism that has failed wherever it has been tried. I also believe it would have divided the country even worse than Brexit.
Johnson on the other hand, because he has few guiding principles other than remaining popular, will not propose anything too radical. He will pursue policy that keeps the majority moderately happy. He will adapt his policy to the situation, rather than pursue ideological solutions dogmatically. He is, in that sense, a safe pair of hands.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
I agree, but now and again, surely...?
Now and again if you back the one most of your neighbours back. If you don't, then don't blame the system.
Why not ? The system disproportionally rewards the largest party/parties, and ensures large parts of the electorate have no effective representation of their views in Parliament.
Worse still the system is entrenched through people who give very little weight to the merits of the arguments, or how good the candidates are, but instead vote according to tribal loyalties and how their family votes.
The fact that the New New Labour Party actively despises and campaigns against the it's traditional core voters was also of interest. The only question was how long they could do that for.
An aside - I was recently told there was "No culture" in England. At that moment I was standing outside the church where Orwell is buried.
My point was that the election was more won by the Cons than lost by Labour. It was won via the political skill of Johnson. He framed it perfectly, messaged it perfectly, and got the Leave vote behind him. This was bound to win a FPTP election. The only uncertainty was size of majority. It follows that attributing the lion's share of the blame for the defeat to Corbyn and Corbynism is facile and/or self-serving nonsense. It cost at the most 25 seats.
I'm with Robert Smithson and Blair here, in that I don't think adopting a pro-leave position would have done Labour much good. We'd just have leaked votes to the Lib Dems. Going forward, though, it's clear we can't be an immediate rejoin party, so as long Starmer recognises that, I don't think he'd necessarily be a disaster.
This is undeniably true. A pro Leave stance would have saved some heartland seats at the risk of being supplanted by the LDs in many many more. It was not a serious option.
In a democracy, I'd far rather a PM who only cares for himself than an ideologue.
Ideologues are dangerous, they want to change things, they want to reshape society. That is precisely why Corbyn was dangerous. He wanted to experiment with a kind of radical socialism that has failed wherever it has been tried. I also believe it would have divided the country even worse than Brexit.
Johnson on the other hand, because he has few guiding principles other than remaining popular, will not propose anything too radical. He will pursue policy that keeps the majority moderately happy. He will adapt his policy to the situation, rather than pursue ideological solutions dogmatically. He is, in that sense, a safe pair of hands.
Yes, I get that. And we will see. I wonder how hard he will strive to satisfy these identity-driven WWC voters he has now picked up? That could get ugly.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
Democracy is having a say. It isn't having a successful say.
I agree, but now and again, surely...?
Now and again if you back the one most of your neighbours back. If you don't, then don't blame the system.
Why not ? The system disproportionally rewards the largest party/parties, and ensures large parts of the electorate have no effective representation of their views in Parliament.
Its not disproprtionate. Its entirely proportionate that those who win get represented and those that lose don't. If you want representation in Parliament don't change the rules of the game, convince others to share your views.
You claim he cares for himself, though all politicians do. I can't see how you can use that tag more for Johnson than you can eg Tony Blair or David Cameron.
I do have indications as to his principles, because he's been active in journalism and politics for decades and has rather consistently been a liberal Conservative like myself.
Of course previous PMs were not paragons. However, I cannot recall one where any semblance of the spirit of public service was absent. If you do not detect that, I am surprised. I expect that in the fullness of time you will come to see it.
Comments
I replied to a reply to my post. Replying is not ignoring. Telling someone "I am ignoring your posts" is by definition not ignoring their post, simply not responding at all is ignoring it.
Sorry you didn't understand my points regarding the weaknesses in our so-called democracy, but the only relevance to your schoolboy obsession with Brexit was regarding the dumb pastime of some Brexiteers to bang on about "democracy". I am sure there must be a book out there called the British Constitution for Dummies/ Brexit supporters. Look up some of the stuff, it can be quite interesting to understand why a lot of the real political establishment want people to focus on Europe rather than the actual deficiencies in our constitution.
Starmer somehow got away with this, even though he theoretically (although obviously not in practice) was in charge of the offending policy.
FWIW I think they're both horribly mispriced, in the directions you indicate, and have bet accordingly.
You could learn an awful lot from dipsticks.
As we've already seen with Corbyn those are two very different things.
Good thing Emily isn't on this website, she might take the words "Big Beast" the wrong way lol.
No, not those rebels. The other lot.
We are about to perform a very interesting experiment - one that to the best of my recall is unique in modern times as far as this country goes. We have a PM with real power who cares not a flying fuck for anything but himself.
It may work out fine or it may not. There is no inevitability either way. Probably it will be something in the middle. Most things are, let's face it. But I caution you not to get caught up in his windy rhetoric. Watch what he does.
I have no idea what the true prices should be but the price rollercoaster has been profitable so far.
I do have indications as to his principles, because he's been active in journalism and politics for decades and has rather consistently been a liberal Conservative like myself.
The system disproportionally rewards the largest party/parties, and ensures large parts of the electorate have no effective representation of their views in Parliament.
Ideologues are dangerous, they want to change things, they want to reshape society. That is precisely why Corbyn was dangerous. He wanted to experiment with a kind of radical socialism that has failed wherever it has been tried. I also believe it would have divided the country even worse than Brexit.
Johnson on the other hand, because he has few guiding principles other than remaining popular, will not propose anything too radical. He will pursue policy that keeps the majority moderately happy. He will adapt his policy to the situation, rather than pursue ideological solutions dogmatically. He is, in that sense, a safe pair of hands.
NEW THREAD
His principles? As I say, watch what he does.