Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
Good history Sunil.
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
To anyone around my age or younger, Sinn Fein are just another political party. The IRA link is a historical quirk.
Oh to be young again! Are you looking forward to your 21st birthday, you lucky swine?
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
But voters cannot make an informed choice. They have to vote for the least worst out of two options. If I vote Labour, I have to take Labour as they come. If I vote Conservative, I have to take them as they come. If I don’t like either of them, I’m snookered.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
I feel like the system works much better in practice than on paper. For example, regardless of the extent to which Boris Johnson (or his successor) can use weasel words in four years' time to claim that they've kept to all their key manifesto commitments, the people who voted for them in 2019 will know, intrinsically, whether they believe it or not. And they'll be able to vote accordingly.
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
Good history Sunil.
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
To anyone around my age or younger, Sinn Fein are just another political party. The IRA link is a historical quirk.
Oh to be young again! Are you looking forward to your 21st birthday, you lucky swine?
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
But voters cannot make an informed choice. They have to vote for the least worst out of two options. If I vote Labour, I have to take Labour as they come. If I vote Conservative, I have to take them as they come. If I don’t like either of them, I’m snookered.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
I feel like the system works much better in practice than on paper. For example, regardless of the extent to which Boris Johnson (or his successor) can use weasel words in four years' time to claim that they've kept to all their key manifesto commitments, the people who voted for them in 2019 will know, intrinsically, whether they believe it or not. And they'll be able to vote accordingly.
Whilst I agree in theory, if the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn or similar, what does it matter if Boris Johnson had kept their manifesto commitments?
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Yet they are happy to see Arlene Foster - a Unionist - govern alongside SF north of the Border.
Um. You do know they don't get consulted, yes?
Who? Arlene?
At any rate, doesn't change my point. If SF are good enough to govern in NI, they are good enough to govern in the Republic.
Indeed they are actually a lot less objectionable outside the North. Even if we set aside their history, their current silly partisanship in NI makes them unpalatable compared with the SDLP (for example), but that partisanship is barely relevant the other side of the border.
The only thing is that an SF Taoiseach could be bad for peace in NI, but in any case the most likely route to a SF Taoiseach is a grand coalition.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
How many constituencies in the last decade where won by a party that had been third previously? You think its zero?
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
I don't wish to be arrogant (or wrong of course!) but most people did actually face one of two clear choices based on medium- or long-term political alignments in their areas, and most Conservative political campaigns since 2015 have been based on this fact rather than on p93 of their manifestos, so they agree with me!
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
Damn shame, that's my favourite kind of dishonesty too.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
How many constituencies in the last decade where won by a party that had been third previously? You think its zero?
Well, technically it was still one party in 1922, and they won 59% of the vote and all but 24 seats.
The minor detail that they were literally about to start a war is irrelevant.
I suppose 1923, when under de Valera’s leadership the rump of Sinn Fein won 44 seats, was their previous high watermark. After the 1926 split they basically became irrelevant.
SF split in 1922 into the Pro-Treaty faction, which eventually morphed into FG. Then in 1926, De Valera disagreed with abstentionism, leading to him effectively breaking with his own SF party and founding FF.
Then, as you say the rump SF were basically irrelevant.
During the early stages of the Troubles, in 1970, SF split into the "traditionalists", who became the Provos, and the "lefties", who became the Officials.
In 1972, the Officials declared a ceasefire, leading to some members breaking away as the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) and its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Eventually, by 1982, the Officials morphed into the avowedly leftist Workers' Party.
The INLA themselves split into the IPLO (Irish People's Liberation Organisation) in 1987, though involvement in drug dealing led to the latter being all but wiped out by the Provos by 1992.
Meanwhile in 1986, The Provos' decision to contest elections in the Republic, abandoning abstentionism, led to the formation of the Continuity IRA and Republican Sinn Fein.
In 1992, the Workers' Party also split, with a majority of elected members in the Republic forming Democratic Left, which eventually merged with Irish Labour in 1999.
So, hopefully it can be seen that no less than FOUR parties in the Republic have origins in, or merged with elements descended from, the original 1905 incarnation of Sinn Fein.
Good history Sunil.
Question: do Sinn Fein attract the same abhorrence from mainstream Irish opinion as they do from mainstream British opinion? In Britain we still see them as, if not murderers, then at least people who do the PR for murderers. But maybe in the ROI they have a different image?
I don't see them that way and I'm British, so please don't assume that you know how 'we' view SF 'in Britain'.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
And I’ve supported PR, even when FPTP has given results I like. What’s your point?
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
How many constituencies in the last decade where won by a party that had been third previously? You think its zero?
That has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
It is relevant. Your fallacious claim was that choices had been reduced to THIS or THAT. Its bollocks.
The problem is that most people normally want THIS or THAT. When they don't, when most people want OTHER they can get OTHER.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
How many constituencies in the last decade where won by a party that had been third previously? You think its zero?
That has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
It is relevant. Your fallacious claim was that choices had been reduced to THIS or THAT. Its bollocks.
The problem is that most people normally want THIS or THAT. When they don't, when most people want OTHER they can get OTHER.
It’s not bollocks at all. You were happy to laugh at the claim Jo Swinson was running to be “Prime Minister”. It is a fact that in a vast majority of constituencies your choice is either Labour or Tory. To pretend otherwise is a lie.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact that our system produces a disproportionate result which is not in keeping with what people actually voted for. You may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
But voters cannot make an informed choice. They have to vote for the least worst out of two options. If I vote Labour, I have to take Labour as they come. If I vote Conservative, I have to take them as they come. If I don’t like either of them, I’m snookered.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
I feel like the system works much better in practice than on paper. For example, regardless of the extent to which Boris Johnson (or his successor) can use weasel words in four years' time to claim that they've kept to all their key manifesto commitments, the people who voted for them in 2019 will know, intrinsically, whether they believe it or not. And they'll be able to vote accordingly.
Whilst I agree in theory, if the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn or similar, what does it matter if Boris Johnson had kept their manifesto commitments?
Well, there is that. Although there's an open question there: would a Corbyn-led Labour party's vote have held up as well under PR as it did under FPTP? Or would it have made no difference, since he'd have still ended up as the leader of the largest of the left-wing bloc parties?
What you said may be technically factual but it is not the “truth”. You look at things through such a tiny, narrow viewpoint that you fail to even acknowledge the bigger picture. You know for a fact thatou may think that the benefits of FPTP outweigh the downside, and that’s fine, but your arrogance of your viewpoint being the universal truth just clouds everything.
The bigger picture is that under FPTP our parties make compromises before the election and the voters make an informed choice.
PR appeals to tiny narrow viewpoints who don't want to join a big tent, who want to vote for a tiny narrow party.
But compromises are necessary. So after the election the compromises must be made but by then its too late for the voters to judge.
But voters cannot make an informed choice. They have to vote for the least worst out of two options. If I vote Labour, I have to take Labour as they come. If I vote Conservative, I have to take them as they come. If I don’t like either of them, I’m snookered.
Under PR, I could vote for the New Labour party and give them more power in the “left” block of parties. I could vote for the One Nation Conservative party to give them more power in the “right” block of parties.
Manifestos mean absolutely nothing under FPTP anyway. Don’t pretend otherwise. They are so vague and full of “consultation this, best endeavour that”
I feel like the system works much better in practice than on paper. For example, regardless of the extent to which Boris Johnson (or his successor) can use weasel words in four years' time to claim that they've kept to all their key manifesto commitments, the people who voted for them in 2019 will know, intrinsically, whether they believe it or not. And they'll be able to vote accordingly.
Whilst I agree in theory, if the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn or similar, what does it matter if Boris Johnson had kept their manifesto commitments?
Well, there is that. Although there's an open question there: would a Corbyn-led Labour party's vote have held up as well under PR as it did under FPTP? Or would it have made no difference, since he'd have still ended up as the leader of the largest of the left-wing bloc parties?
Perhaps Corbyn could have become PM under PR however I think it would be far easier for the hypothetical “New Labour” party to collapse the government and/or rebel under such a coalition than under the Westminster system. Therefore the fear of Corbyn being PM would be less.
Or it would be far easier for an alternative Right party to emerge.
I could be wrong though. You make an interesting point.
To be fair, I suspect the British public are probably similarly indifferent to quite a lot of events given headline billing by the media. There's a reason the Express lead with a story about the weather once a fortnight, even if is completely made up.
If the Irish don't have a functioning government for months, what does this mean for the trade deal re EU?
I don't know. In the UK the Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until another is appointed (there is always a UK government). I don't know if the analogous situation pertains in the Republic. Many Westminster-derived setups are similar to the UK version, but not identical and I know that some of them have quirks and features we don't.
It occurs to me this reply is not helpful: apologies...
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You know we had FPTP all the way through the period when we rose to be the first global superpower and the largest empire in the history of the world?
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You are a very negative nelly.
For the past 100+ years, unlike pretty much every other European country, we have had a very stable society, very little civil unrest (the fact we still talk about the miners strike is a fairly good example of how uncommon that sort of thing is in the UK), never dabbled with communism or fascism. And today we still have a strong economy, low unemployment, low inflation etc etc etc.
That isn't to say there aren't problem, but I would rather have had the past 100 years in the UK than have the history of the likes of Spain, Italy, Greece or even today France where they are still on the streets every weekend.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
Don’t be intellectually dishonest. It’s unbecoming.
How many constituencies in the last decade where won by a party that had been third previously? You think its zero?
That has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
It is relevant. Your fallacious claim was that choices had been reduced to THIS or THAT. Its bollocks.
The problem is that most people normally want THIS or THAT. When they don't, when most people want OTHER they can get OTHER.
It’s not bollocks at all. You were happy to laugh at the claim Jo Swinson was running to be “Prime Minister”. It is a fact that in a vast majority of constituencies your choice is either Labour or Tory. To pretend otherwise is a lie.
I was happy to laugh at the claim because she was an unpopular and pretentious shit running an unpopular and pretentious party that was trailing mammothly in the polls. If she was popular and her party was I wouldn't be laughing.
I'm happy to laugh at Rebecca Long Bailey and the Labour left too. That laughter and Swinson's not becoming PM had nothing to do with the voting system.
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
Which countries both European and other have had a better past 100 years than us.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You know we had FPTP all the way through the period when we rose to be the first global superpower and the largest empire in the history of the world?
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
On that basis you could blame giving women the vote for our subsequent decline. It’s a silly argument.
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You know we had FPTP all the way through the period when we rose to be the first global superpower and the largest empire in the history of the world?
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
There have been some of the most iconic and celebrated moments in British post war culture celebrated at the Oscars....British films have created 1000's of jobs and have fostered the popularity of the UK.....British filmmakers and artists have led the UK to be on of the most interesting places on this planet...David Lean, Merchant and Ivory, Branagh and Olivier.....the Oscars have advertised Britain better than probably any other medium....
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
Couple of interesting take away from Iowa. Apparently the turn-out wasn't up from last time and Bernie polled single digits with the oldies. Reminds me of Magic Grandpa.
NASHUA, N.H. -- Moderate Democratic presidential hopefuls crisscrossed the Granite State on Sunday as they battled for an edge in a crowded lane among New Hampshire voters.
In Nashua, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew more than 1,800 people to his first town hall of the day, his largest crowd of the year.
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Is it common to refer to ones girlfriend as a personal appointee?
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Does she have a proper paid role in the government? I genuinely didn't know that if true.
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
Yep, and it doesn't help that he has called himself a Democratic Socialist in the past, which is more ammo for his opponent. Not that Americans make much distinction between social democracy, democratic socialism, or socialism.
Anyone would be better than Trump but right now it looks like the Democrats will make it far too easy for Trump to win. Democrats will be facing a very well funded campaign and an executive that will do everything in its power to help Trump. All the rules and norms are out the window, and I expect to see the dirtiest campaign in living memory.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You know we had FPTP all the way through the period when we rose to be the first global superpower and the largest empire in the history of the world?
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
Empire is fundamentally undemocratic.
Historically speaking, democracies are not common nor widespread. For much of post-Roman history, power belonged to whichever bastard had the biggest army. I think it was Portillo who said that at the beginning of the 20th Century there were only eight[1] democracies in the entire world
[1] I've got no idea if it's true, but it's too good a soundbite to fact-check...
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
Couple of interesting take away from Iowa. Apparently the turn-out wasn't up from last time and Bernie polled single digits with the oldies. Reminds me of Magic Grandpa.
Yep. I gather from the newspapers today that Dem leaders are terrified this is another Corbyn moment that leads to total loss.
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
Couple of interesting take away from Iowa. Apparently the turn-out wasn't up from last time and Bernie polled single digits with the oldies. Reminds me of Magic Grandpa.
Yep. I gather from the newspapers today that Dem leaders are terrified this is another Corbyn moment that leads to total loss.
Sanders is McGovern.
The only saving grace they have is it is vs Trump...who has pissed off so many people and always seconds away from going off-piste.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
unlike pretty much every other European country, we have had a very stable society, very little civil unrest...
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Does she have a proper paid role in the government? I genuinely didn't know that if true.
Cummings is gone once Larry the cat starts to snarl.
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Is it common to refer to ones girlfriend as a personal appointee?
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
Couple of interesting take away from Iowa. Apparently the turn-out wasn't up from last time and Bernie polled single digits with the oldies. Reminds me of Magic Grandpa.
Yep. I gather from the newspapers today that Dem leaders are terrified this is another Corbyn moment that leads to total loss.
Sanders is McGovern.
The only saving grace they have is it is vs Trump...who has pissed off so many people and always seconds away from going off-piste.
Yes, but also well on his way to a second term.
The Dem primary voters need to wake up to their responsibility here.
Ultimately, we have never been in an age of reason - emotion has always ruled. The only times it has appeared that reason has prevailed, have been when there has been a general consensus amongst the ruling elites who control of the flow of information, usually because of some outside threat (e.g. the Cold War). Discuss.
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Does she have a proper paid role in the government? I genuinely didn't know that if true.
It does amuse me when people implicitly refer to Rebecca Bong-Lailey.
She was the future once.
Rather poignantly, I don't think she ever was. Umunna Syndrome....
Why on earth didn't McDonnell run? He probably would have walked this.
He's much abler than Corbyn was, though without the faux mild geniality which so many people seem to like about Corbyn, but I would think he recognised that baggage was a major problem they had as a team, and he would not solve that problem as he has plenty of his own.
To be clear, if the first choice of the Republic of Ireland is the Shinners, then I do wish I lived in a world when we could cut it adrift and repudiate not just the Irish part of the withdrawal deal, but everything going back to the Downing St declaration.
Either that or waive NI off. One or the other.
I was rather hoping for Scottish independence and the ability to make them take the Northern Irish with them.
David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance. The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
Sorry to hear that Big_G. It is always sad when things one has done in earlier life are not possible any more.
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
Sorry to hear that Big_G. It is always sad when things one has done in earlier life are not possible any more.
That is kind of you but we always said we would do it while we can and we have literally sailed the seven seas and the only cruises left would require very long haul flights that we are not upto
David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance. The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
I’m also very sorry to hear that. Maybe never say never?
David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance. The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
I have heard Doctors tend to have quite short lives as a profession. No idea if it's true.
I think Sanders would struggle to win more than about 5 states if he's the nominee.
Yep. But hey its a couple more than McGovern and at least the left have told the country what to think and haven't triangulated or become Clinton and have kept their integrity etc etc.
To be clear, if the first choice of the Republic of Ireland is the Shinners, then I do wish I lived in a world when we could cut it adrift and repudiate not just the Irish part of the withdrawal deal, but everything going back to the Downing St declaration.
Either that or waive NI off. One or the other.
I was rather hoping for Scottish independence and the ability to make them take the Northern Irish with them.
SF have topped the poll in NI already, eg. at GE 2010.
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Does she have a proper paid role in the government? I genuinely didn't know that if true.
I don't believe so. As far as I know she works for an environmental consultancy.
29% is a reasonable number. Not everyone cares about other things in the news either. There may even be folk in England unbothered by the New Hampshire Primary!
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
I don't mean to be funny, but why is the PM girlfriend involved at all?
Both Symonds and Cummings are not civil servants and are strictly personal appointees courtesy of the office of the Prime Minister. The PM does have a lot of personal power. If he wants them there, then they go there.
Does she have a proper paid role in the government? I genuinely didn't know that if true.
I don't believe so. As far as I know she works for an environmental consultancy.
So it comes back to my original point, why is she sticking her oar in. I don't remember hearing Sam Cam getting involved in such decisions.
Comments
2 seats remaining to be filled in Dublin West. 3 candidates left: FF, People Before Profit and Green
Chambers (FF) 7,836
Coppinger (PBP) 6,991
O’Gorman (GP) 6,270
4,430 to be distributed
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
The only thing is that an SF Taoiseach could be bad for peace in NI, but in any case the most likely route to a SF Taoiseach is a grand coalition.
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
The problem is that most people normally want THIS or THAT. When they don't, when most people want OTHER they can get OTHER.
Independent Michael Healy-Rae and Sinn Féin's Pa Daly have taken the first two seats in Kerr
Fianna Fáil's Willie O'Dea has taken the second seat in Limerick City
Galway East finished. Second and third seats go to FF and FG. SF miss out by around 100 votes. Ind got the first seat.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
SF 28
FF 6
Ind 5
FG 4
Greens 3
People Before Profit 2
Or it would be far easier for an alternative Right party to emerge.
I could be wrong though. You make an interesting point.
It occurs to me this reply is not helpful: apologies...
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
For the past 100+ years, unlike pretty much every other European country, we have had a very stable society, very little civil unrest (the fact we still talk about the miners strike is a fairly good example of how uncommon that sort of thing is in the UK), never dabbled with communism or fascism. And today we still have a strong economy, low unemployment, low inflation etc etc etc.
That isn't to say there aren't problem, but I would rather have had the past 100 years in the UK than have the history of the likes of Spain, Italy, Greece or even today France where they are still on the streets every weekend.
I'm happy to laugh at Rebecca Long Bailey and the Labour left too. That laughter and Swinson's not becoming PM had nothing to do with the voting system.
It's Carrie versus Cummings! Boris Johnson's partner Carrie Symonds and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings 'are at war over Cabinet reshuffle'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984759/Boris-Johnsons-partner-Carrie-Symonds-chief-adviser-Dominic-Cummings-war.html
Bye. Thanks for the dress advice.
Good luck mate.
Mrs U would do her nut if I stuck my oar in over who I think is a knobber among her work colleagues.
https://twitter.com/PetaSteel/status/1226605536151527432
People Before Profit ousted
"“Obviously I am not a communist,” Sanders told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” in response to a clip of Trump using the designation in a Fox News interview, adding that Trump “maybe doesn’t know the difference.”
Neither does the electorate. You will lose.
As of 22:30pm, 39/39 constituencies have completed at least one count.
This is the standings so far.
NASHUA, N.H. -- Moderate Democratic presidential hopefuls crisscrossed the Granite State on Sunday as they battled for an edge in a crowded lane among New Hampshire voters.
In Nashua, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew more than 1,800 people to his first town hall of the day, his largest crowd of the year.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1226590138295128065
Big G likes nothing more than going on cruises.....I doubt you'd get 29% of the UK population enjoying spending their time on ridiculous, consumeristic hulks of metal populated by Tory inclined, Daily Mail pensioners.....
Anyone would be better than Trump but right now it looks like the Democrats will make it far too easy for Trump to win. Democrats will be facing a very well funded campaign and an executive that will do everything in its power to help Trump. All the rules and norms are out the window, and I expect to see the dirtiest campaign in living memory.
[1] I've got no idea if it's true, but it's too good a soundbite to fact-check...
Sanders is McGovern.
First preferences totals
Sinn Fein 24.5%
Fianna Fale 22.2%
Fine Gale 20.9%
Ind 12.2%
Greens 7.1%
Lab 4.4%
Social Democrats 2.9%
People Before Profit 2.6%
Aontú 1.9%
You are a grasping BTL bastard.
The Dem primary voters need to wake up to their responsibility here.
Every budget of my lifetime has included this kite in the run in I reckon.
Either that or waive NI off. One or the other.
I was rather hoping for Scottish independence and the ability to make them take the Northern Irish with them.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1226624537770381313
Sound familiar?
The low turnout of African Americans in 2016 was instrumental in getting Trump elected.