23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Give over Charles. This is rubbish. FPTP benefits the status quo and therefore there's no political drive to change it. Just look at Canada - they voted to change it, and then as soon as a party wins with it, they no longer want to. The same thing happened in this country in 1997!
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Oh pardon me I am sure my always was understood by most to mean around 90 % we all use hyperbole. And yes parties under fptp are coalitions but guess what they have to agree the manifesto before getting your vote not after which is my whole point.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
Easy to justify: Because every constituency gets their most popular choice. If any constituency preferred anyone else they would have got their preference.
But they don't! A lot of people don't vote for the party they support under FPTP because *they know* that the voting system makes voting for the Lib Dems, or the Greens, or whoever, a wasted vote, so they vote for the Tories or Labour based on who they hate the least.
They should be voting for the party they actually support. FPTP makes them not do that.
I have seen no evidence that lots of people support the Lib Dems, Greens etc but don't vote for them. But either way they can weigh up their decisions and vote however they want to. Their choice.
Even if you saw it - you'd ignore it.
I voted Labour in 2019 because I felt I had to due to the voting system. I would have preferred to vote for the Liberal Democrats but if I had voted for them my vote would have been wasted.
and it wasn't?
My vote helped stop the Tories or the Brexit Party win Newcastle upon Tyne North.
Neither seems likely particularly The Brexit Party? Does it live under your bed?
Aside from the fact that Canada doesn't, and never has had, a centre-left government, the last election was. Tories 34% Liberals 33% Parties to the left of Trudeau 30%. Upshot. Liberals largest Party 12 short of a majority. Not surprisingly PR is not high on his priority list.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Oh pardon me I am sure my always was understood by most to mean around 90 % we all use hyperbole. And yes parties under fptp are coalitions but guess what they have to agree the manifesto before getting your vote not after which is my whole point.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
Your attitude is all wrong. You want the winner to get everything they want, even if they only received the vote of 35% of people, for example. A coalition ensures a compromise.
Compromises are for grown ups, winner takes all is for children who can't handle compromise.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
Because it is local communities voting for a representative not a country voting for a legislature.
Yes - that's the entire point. That's the main reason why FPTP doesn't work.
It works perfectly. It is designed to select representatives for local communities to advocate for their interests. The failings are due to whipping and that is not the fault of the electoral system but the party system
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Oh pardon me I am sure my always was understood by most to mean around 90 % we all use hyperbole. And yes parties under fptp are coalitions but guess what they have to agree the manifesto before getting your vote not after which is my whole point.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
Your attitude is all wrong. You want the winner to get everything they want, even if they only received the vote of 35% of people, for example. A coalition ensures a compromise.
Compromises are for grown ups, winner takes all is for children who can't handle compromise.
And you just want us little people to not get to decide whats best for us and let our betters decide
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Oh pardon me I am sure my always was understood by most to mean around 90 % we all use hyperbole. And yes parties under fptp are coalitions but guess what they have to agree the manifesto before getting your vote not after which is my whole point.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
Your attitude is all wrong. You want the winner to get everything they want, even if they only received the vote of 35% of people, for example. A coalition ensures a compromise.
Compromises are for grown ups, winner takes all is for children who can't handle compromise.
And you just want us little people to not get to decide whats best for us and let our betters decide
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
Because it is local communities voting for a representative not a country voting for a legislature.
Yes - that's the entire point. That's the main reason why FPTP doesn't work.
It works perfectly. It is designed to select representatives for local communities to advocate for their interests. The failings are due to whipping and that is not the fault of the electoral system but the party system
I agree with you there, but the party system does exist and cannot be uncoupled from FPTP.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
Not me that is butt hurt....its you that wants to change the system and take choice away from us little people
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
Not me that is butt hurt....its you that wants to change the system and take choice away from us little people
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
The only metric that matters is voters.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
The only metric that matters is voters.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Oh pardon me I am sure my always was understood by most to mean around 90 % we all use hyperbole. And yes parties under fptp are coalitions but guess what they have to agree the manifesto before getting your vote not after which is my whole point.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
Your attitude is all wrong. You want the winner to get everything they want, even if they only received the vote of 35% of people, for example. A coalition ensures a compromise.
Compromises are for grown ups, winner takes all is for children who can't handle compromise.
And you just want us little people to not get to decide whats best for us and let our betters decide
Umm, no. That is not the case.
Well it obviously is unless you can show why coalitions decided after votes are in doesn't decide what people actuallly meant by their vote which 2010 obviously did such as your parties pledge to abolish tuition fees.
I am sure that a lot voted tory in 2015 purely to get an eu referendum. I am equally sure that if the tories had to go back into coalitition that would be one of the first things traded away as politicians decided in dark smoky rooms what was best for them
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
Yes!
I grow blueberries here (but the birds get them) and have the odd bilberry growing wild. But the best thing is, I discovered, literally yesterday, that my black mulberry planted in 2003 is fruiting for the first time. Huge excitement.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
Not me that is butt hurt....its you that wants to change the system and take choice away from us little people
I want us to have more choice.
INo you dont want you want is more parties, and allow politicians to decide what we voted for. More parties doesnt mean more choice. PR leads to centrist governements and if we don't want one tough luck
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
So what events does your daughter do with her horse(s)?
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
The only metric that matters is voters.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
Let's agree to disagree.
I'll agree to you acknowledging what I said was I was "technically true". Which is a tautological way of saying: true.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
The only metric that matters is voters.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
Let's agree to disagree.
I'll agree to you acknowledging what I said was I was "technically true". Which is a tautological way of saying: true.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
Not me that is butt hurt....its you that wants to change the system and take choice away from us little people
I want us to have more choice.
INo you dont want you want is more parties, and allow politicians to decide what we voted for. More parties doesnt mean more choice. PR leads to centrist governements and if we don't want one tough luck
Why should 40% of the vote receive 100% of the power?
You’re only defending this because currently you’re benefiting from the system. As soon as that changes you’ll be whinging and whining as much as you do about “Remainers”.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
Any world with the word "whortleberry" AND the thing itself, is truly a world worth living!
Indeed, IF ever enobled, will take as my title Lord Whortleberry.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
Yes!
I grow blueberries here (but the birds get them) and have the odd bilberry growing wild. But the best thing is, I discovered, literally yesterday, that my black mulberry planted in 2003 is fruiting for the first time. Huge excitement.
I Inherited this garden 9 months ago, and there are gooseberries, redcurrants, blackcurrants, raspberries and blackberries already - and perhaps white berries whatever they are called. I am trying to add a few of my favourites.
< Plug >
I've started blogging a few of the questions from March April in a gardening blog at the Buildhub website for self-builders, where I am a member, if you are interested.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Not sure you do, really.
Dressage is surely about military parades, not battles - cf the parade ground command By the right, dress! meaning get into an exactly straight line. Doing that with horses, if you are a bit too far forward and to one side an untrained horse and rider will have to ride forward, then round the end of the line, and try again from the back. Dressage means you can nudge your horse backwards and sideways to solve the problem.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
When I was young my mother made wimberry pies (which I only found out later were the same as the European blueberry). We used to go out picking them, as they grew wild, and you ended up with purple hands.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
And pr an even worse system. I don't want a voting system where politicians get to decide what I voted for after my vote is cast. At least with our current system I know what I am voting for. Its bad enough that currently they drop things let alone its decided after all votes are cast.
You want pr then we should all get the opportunity to withdraw our vote once we are told what it is we voted for and if that means what ever backroom deals were don fail then tough
PR is not a "system". PR is a whole series of voting systems.
You clearly don't understand what it is.
I inderstand exactly what it is, all pr sustems lead to coalition where politicians meet in smoky rooms and trade off policies to get to a manifesto that precisely no one voted for. Much like the 2010 coalition in this country. IF I had known what they would collar together as a manifesto I would have voted against them not for one of the partyies. Yet they could count my vote towards their mandate
Clearly you don't then, as that is not the case.
Name a country that has pr that doesn't result in coalitions as the norm then if thas not the case. Oh dear wrong again
You didn't say it was the norm. You said it ALWAYS led to coalition governments.
Regardless we have coalition governments under FPTP, they are just opaque and hidden from public view.
The Labour Party is a coalition between the far left and centrists. The Conservative party is a coalition of all kinds of political persuasions on the right.
Manifestos don't mean anything at all.
Ah yes you are a remainer I forgot, you think the electorate is too thick to choose what they want and no surprise yoy therefore support a system where the electorate doesnt get a choice but are told what politicians think is good for them. We can only decide which set of people tell us what is best for us.
Brexit has already happened. I suggest that you get over it.
Not me that is butt hurt....its you that wants to change the system and take choice away from us little people
I want us to have more choice.
INo you dont want you want is more parties, and allow politicians to decide what we voted for. More parties doesnt mean more choice. PR leads to centrist governements and if we don't want one tough luck
Why should 40% of the vote receive 100% of the power?
You’re only defending this because currently you’re benefiting from the system. As soon as that changes you’ll be whinging and whining as much as you do about “Remainers”.
I don't see how I am benefitting as I despise the tory party as it currently is and they aren't implementing what I would like.
Look at your own party in 2010 you went into coalition on the back of your votes. You obviously failed them as they took their votes elsewhere after you betrayed them and traded away the reasons they voted for you. Tell me how you were representing them please. I suspect if all those that voted tory and libdem that thought the coalition wasn't doing what they wanted when they came up with the manifesto then the coalition wouldn't have been in power.
That is the issue with pr you claim you have a majority by claiming the votes of people who wouldnt have given you a vote if they knew what you would do with it. The coalition quite probably had about 30^% vote support given the lib dems were on on about 20% and dropped to 6% when they announced their joint manifesto.
So in absolute power with 30% so much better than being in power with 40%
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
The only metric that matters is voters.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
Let's agree to disagree.
I'll agree to you acknowledging what I said was I was "technically true". Which is a tautological way of saying: true.
Nah, it isn’t.
If Its not true then please re-examine the original claim, I will emphasise some relevant words: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Do billions of people worldwide use our system? Yes or no?
Is there another electoral system used by "more people"? Yes or no?
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
@Pagan2 if I was unhappy with the liberal Democrats in coalition I could vote for another party at the next election - exactly the same as what happens under FPTP, except under the coalition, Lib Dem voters did indeed get some of their policies enacted, rather than nothing.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
I didnt vote tory in 2015 , I said many people probably did vote tory voted for an eu referendum
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
I didnt vote tory in 2015 , I said many people probably did vote tory voted for an eu referendum
Well I apologise for that, but the point still stands.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
When I was young my mother made wimberry pies (which I only found out later were the same as the European blueberry). We used to go out picking them, as they grew wild and you ended up with purple hands.
Yep - bilberries have a more dense, concentrated flavour.
In some places there was a tradition of kids having a day off school to go bilberry picking. I have a suspicion that the best way is to get there early in the morning after a rainy day beforehand.
You come back with purple stains as you say, whereas if you go after a Himalayan Giant blackberry you come back with red punctures like a Frenchman up against Welsh longbows.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Personally, I'd be happier to have an over-50s lockdown imposed at the moment than having to resist societal pressures to get out and about.
Big range of people in their 50s. I posted my covid age earlier which is 68 (nearly all added from hereditary/congenital factors, so not much apart from losing a stone or so that I can do about it). Then again, a woman my age with absolutely no extra conditions is the same risk as a healthy male in their late forties. Fifties is the decade when serious illness kicks in, mortality is older. Johnson will, of course, realise this. Not as likely to kick the bucket but quite likely to screw up an organ or two and you end up costing the NHS god knows how much for the next twenty/thirty years.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Not this rubbish again.
Its not rubbish.
Be decent enough to acknowledge other people have their own thoughts and honest opinions.
Be decent enough to acknowledge when other people are right. Even if you disagree with them, you can still be a big enough person to acknowledge someone has a point while disagreeing.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Going off population figures from those in FPTP countries:
UK 67 million USA 328 million Canada 38 million India 1.353 billion Pakistan 212 million Nigeria 196 million The Philippines 107 million
And many more countries but that is 2 and a quarter billion people living in those seven countries alone.
I challenge you to find a single democratic method that comes close to that many billions.
So it only applies if you use FPTP itself to calculate "the winner"?
Pull the other one.
Eh?
Feel free to add all PR countries together and show it cancoming close to the billions in FPTP if you like. Be my guest but please like me show your working, or please acknowledge I was right?
Like I said, pull the other one.
I said billions are under FPTP, more people than any other. You asked me to show my working I did show working And now this is all you have to say?
You pull the other one. I was right, I demonstrated it mathematically. Are you not big enough to acknowledge that?
You said that FPTP was "the best in the world and is mainstream" and tried to back up that statement with a ridiculously misleading comment on how "no other system is used by more people".
That may be technically true, although you haven't proven it, a huge majority of countries use other, more proportional systems.
Ergo your point is rubbish.
"Technically true" - is that a backhanded way of saying "what you said is true"? What I said is either true or false if it is true then I am right in what I said.
Countries are not people and countries are not equal. I see no non racist reason to only count Europeans as people. The only reasonable metric to use, as I used originally, is people.
Lol.
The original claim: Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Was that claim in your eyes True or False?
If false, please show your working.
Clearly false - 2/3 of the world use other systems.
Please show your working to demonstrate how two thirds of the people of this world use other systems?
And which electoral system are do you think is used by more people? Or are you counting PR and one party state dictatorships like China as the same thing?
I didn't say 2/3 of people use other systems. I said that 2/3 of countries use other systems - the only metric that is relevant here, considering that these things are decided on a national level.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Not this rubbish again.
Its not rubbish.
Be decent enough to acknowledge other people have their own thoughts and honest opinions.
Be decent enough to acknowledge when other people are right. Even if you disagree with them, you can still be a big enough person to acknowledge someone has a point while disagreeing.
But you don’t have a point, so there’s nothing to acknowledge.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
Yes!
I grow blueberries here (but the birds get them) and have the odd bilberry growing wild. But the best thing is, I discovered, literally yesterday, that my black mulberry planted in 2003 is fruiting for the first time. Huge excitement.
I Inherited this garden 9 months ago, and there are gooseberries, redcurrants, blackcurrants, raspberries and blackberries already - and perhaps white berries whatever they are called. I am trying to add a few of my favourites.
< Plug >
I've started blogging a few of the questions from March April in a gardening blog at the Buildhub website for self-builders, where I am a member, if you are interested.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Say for the sake of argument tories in 2015 got 45% lib dems 15% labour 40%. Tories and lib dem form a coalition therefore. Price of coalition is that the tories drop the referendum
Now further say20% of those tory voters only did so because of the rerendum promise. Removing those give tories 25% lib dems 15% labour 40%...your coalition now only has absolute power of 40% as you complained about becaise you stole the votes of those that only voted for tories due to the eu referendum promise. That is precisely the problem with coalitions
They steal the votes and use them to claim a mandate they don't have because people wouldn't have voted for them if they knew the eventual manifesto.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Give over Charles. This is rubbish. FPTP benefits the status quo and therefore there's no political drive to change it. Just look at Canada - they voted to change it, and then as soon as a party wins with it, they no longer want to. The same thing happened in this country in 1997!
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
I'm sorry but it's total rubbish.
Nah, I'm just a mid level salesman for an international firm. Nothing establishment about me.
I just object to your assertion that a government elected under FPTP is invalid. It's not. As long as FPTP is the accepted system any government elected under the rules is legitimate. If you don't like it, then campaign to change it.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Not this rubbish again.
He deliberately trolls the most inane rubbish on the voting system because he knows it winds people up.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Give over Charles. This is rubbish. FPTP benefits the status quo and therefore there's no political drive to change it. Just look at Canada - they voted to change it, and then as soon as a party wins with it, they no longer want to. The same thing happened in this country in 1997!
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
I'm sorry but it's total rubbish.
Nah, I'm just a mid level salesman for an international firm. Nothing establishment about me.
I just object to your assertion that a government elected under FPTP is invalid. It's not. As long as FPTP is the accepted system any government elected under the rules is legitimate. If you don't like it, then campaign to change it.
At what point did I say that a government elected under FPTP is invalid?
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Give over Charles. This is rubbish. FPTP benefits the status quo and therefore there's no political drive to change it. Just look at Canada - they voted to change it, and then as soon as a party wins with it, they no longer want to. The same thing happened in this country in 1997!
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
I'm sorry but it's total rubbish.
Nah, I'm just a mid level salesman for an international firm. Nothing establishment about me.
I just object to your assertion that a government elected under FPTP is invalid. It's not. As long as FPTP is the accepted system any government elected under the rules is legitimate. If you don't like it, then campaign to change it.
The lib dems are a campaign group surely for that, its as popiular as a large bag of vomit as we can see by the numbers of voters they fail to attract, PR isn't fairer it merely removes choice from voters and puts it in the hands of politicians
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Not this rubbish again.
Its not rubbish.
Be decent enough to acknowledge other people have their own thoughts and honest opinions.
Be decent enough to acknowledge when other people are right. Even if you disagree with them, you can still be a big enough person to acknowledge someone has a point while disagreeing.
But you don’t have a point, so there’s nothing to acknowledge.
You're embarrassing yourself. Is this really the hill you want to metaphorically die on?
"Billions of people" use FPTP - is that true or false? "More people" use FPTP than any other electoral system - is that true or false?
People, not countries. You claimed that the statement was false when the statement was people and asked for working. I gave it. Are you too stubborn to acknowledge I was right, or can you show any working to show that "more people" use any other system?
What about the billions remark? Was that true or false?
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
Because it is local communities voting for a representative not a country voting for a legislature.
Yes - that's the entire point. That's the main reason why FPTP doesn't work.
It works perfectly. It is designed to select representatives for local communities to advocate for their interests. The failings are due to whipping and that is not the fault of the electoral system but the party system
I agree with you there, but the party system does exist and cannot be uncoupled from FPTP.
Party systems always seek to subvert the operation of democracy - they are prevalent in Pr based systems as well, not a unique failure of FPTP.
In theory, by having the potential for local representatives independent of parties (pace Martin Bell or Andrew Hunter) FPTP has some protection against parties.
At the worst extreme, PR-party list systems are completely captured by the parties.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
It doesn't matter how many countries uses it, FPTP is a terrible system. Yeah I'm not a Tory supporter, but I thought it was stupid when Blair got a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote.
How can you justify a party barely getting a *third* of the popular vote yet getting a massive majority? It makes a mockery of democracy IMHO.
Because it is local communities voting for a representative not a country voting for a legislature.
Yes - that's the entire point. That's the main reason why FPTP doesn't work.
It works perfectly. It is designed to select representatives for local communities to advocate for their interests. The failings are due to whipping and that is not the fault of the electoral system but the party system
I agree with you there, but the party system does exist and cannot be uncoupled from FPTP.
Party systems always seek to subvert the operation of democracy - they are prevalent in Pr based systems as well, not a unique failure of FPTP.
In theory, by having the potential for local representatives independent of parties (pace Martin Bell or Andrew Hunter) FPTP has some protection against parties.
At the worst extreme, PR-party list systems are completely captured by the parties.
It is noticeable there is a lot of talk from lib dems about changing the voting system without a referendum as the price of coalition these days. They obviously know us normal people see through the bollocks
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Because the Tories won.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
Not this rubbish again.
He deliberately trolls the most inane rubbish on the voting system because he knows it winds people up.
Its not rubbish.
An entirely reasonable thing to say would be "you are right, more people do use FPTP, but that doesn't make it right to use it and I prefer PR because . . . "
I'm happy to acknowledge when I'm in a minority position. I'm a Conservative who believes in Scottish independence, that's pretty niche and minority, but I'm not going to change my beliefs just because more people think otherwise. Maybe one day my beliefs might be mainstream.
That you're too stubborn to give even an inch on something as demonstrably factual as what I said doesn't look good on you.
@Philip_Thompson you have yet to prove anything. You’re the one who refuses to even acknowledge any criticism of FPTP. Your response to whether its right that a party that gets 100% of the power on 40% of the vote is simply “cos they won lol”.
You’re also the one who when challenged on your ludicrous assertion that somehow FPTP is used by the majority, when in fact most countries use other systems, is to start going on about white supremacism and racism.
Partial shade, acid soil ie ericaceous, keep well-watered - especially in summer - but not water-logged and prune to keep the bush in shape. Don’t crowd as they can suffer from mildew if they don’t get air to the plant.
And don’t forget to pick the fruits before the birds steal them!
Um, with respect, that is wrong. As MattW's tweet makes clear blueberries (big cultivated N American bushes) are different from bilberries aka whins which are a low growing subshrub which grows among heather in the UK uplands. To answer his question, the fruits are so small and sparse and fiddly (though delicious) that I can't imagine anyone would try to cultivate them.
The common European bilberry is also known as the whortleberry (which sounds like a lovely name) - and sometimes, probably wrongly, as you say, as the European blueberry. It is related to the North American larger blueberry, I understand. It likes ericaceous soil - like heathers. And is prone to mildew. How easy or not it is to cultivate the fruits I don’t know as I’ve never done it. But I assumed that @MattW wanted to know how to grow the plant.
Good luck to him.
Do you like gardening too?
When I was young my mother made wimberry pies (which I only found out later were the same as the European blueberry). We used to go out picking them, as they grew wild, and you ended up with purple hands.
These species are all a bit confused. Whortleberry can refer to several different species as indeed can Bilberry.
The Bilberry usually referred to in the UK is Vaccinium myrtillus. Called Blaeberry in Scotland.
The one they call go mad for in Sweden is Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Lingonberry there, Cowberry (or sometimes Mountain Bilberry) here. This is more restricted to the uplands (Wales and the Pennines northwards).
Unfortunately these two cross, just to be confusing.
There's also Vaccinium uliginosum - Bog Bilberry. This is mostly restricted to Scotland although there are a few found in the North Pennines.
@Pagan2 you voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum, yet more people voted for other parties. So why should you get exactly what you want, and others get nothing?
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Say for the sake of argument tories in 2015 got 45% lib dems 15% labour 40%. Tories and lib dem form a coalition therefore. Price of coalition is that the tories drop the referendum
Now further say20% of those tory voters only did so because of the rerendum promise. Removing those give tories 25% lib dems 15% labour 40%...your coalition now only has absolute power of 40% as you complained about becaise you stole the votes of those that only voted for tories due to the eu referendum promise. That is precisely the problem with coalitions
They steal the votes and use them to claim a mandate they don't have because people wouldn't have voted for them if they knew the eventual manifesto.
Manifestos don't mean anything. Many things are in manifestos that don’t get done. Or things that aren't that do. Are those votes “stolen” as well?
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Give over Charles. This is rubbish. FPTP benefits the status quo and therefore there's no political drive to change it. Just look at Canada - they voted to change it, and then as soon as a party wins with it, they no longer want to. The same thing happened in this country in 1997!
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
I'm sorry but it's total rubbish.
Nah, I'm just a mid level salesman for an international firm. Nothing establishment about me.
I just object to your assertion that a government elected under FPTP is invalid. It's not. As long as FPTP is the accepted system any government elected under the rules is legitimate. If you don't like it, then campaign to change it.
At what point did I say that a government elected under FPTP is invalid?
The comment I was thinking about was the reference to the UK having a "corrupt electoral system". Turns out it was @nichomar. Apologies for the confusion.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
@Philip_Thompson you have yet to prove anything. You’re the one who refuses to even acknowledge any criticism of FPTP. Your response to whether its right that a party that gets 100% of the power on 40% of the vote is simply “cos they won lol”.
You’re also the one who when challenged on your ludicrous assertion that somehow FPTP is used by the majority, when in fact most countries use other systems, is to start going on about white supremacism and racism.
I do acknowledge criticisms if I think they're valid, or if I think they're not I respond with my own thoughts not just say "that's ridiculous" and move on.
I did not deny more countries use other systems. I acknowledged that most countries use other systems. However after acknowledging that I also said that was not relevant and doesn't matter. Unless you are saying Europeans matter more than Indians, Pakistanis etc because Europeans are divided into tiny countries.
Do you think Europeans matter more than Indians? Do you think we should ignore only consider the EU because its made up on tiny countries and not blatantly ignore India, Pakistan, the USA etc because they're large countries?
Unless you're prepared to put Indians on an equal footing with Europeans I'm not sure what other word you want me to use instead of supremacism?
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
The horses took advantage of the golfers by galloping ahead.
Back to politics only way golf can do you good, is being photographed with Tiger Woods.
Though for Democrats such as Truman, Clinton & Obama, golf may have served to make then less threatening to moderate, upper-middle-class Republicans.
Bit hard for average American to imagine a Marxist in a golf cart.
Tiger Woods who cheated on his wife with a trashy night-club promotor?
That Tiger Woods?
The Tiger Woods who is the only reason 90% of people give a damn about it these days, at least on PGA level. Otherwise has the same bright future as baseball and the wagon wheel.
Reckon the statute of limitations has run out on his tabloid escapades, to point that it, while you might be attacked for consorting with Tiger Woods, most would consider it chickenshit.
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
I guess when you were reduced to making the genetic case for preserving the Union you still cared. Oh well, life comes at you fast.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
Suggest she check out lancers. Underappreciated but very deadly back in the day, which didn't end until (at least) 19th century.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
Suggest she check out lancers. Underappreciated but very deadly back in the day, which didn't end until (at least) 19th century.
Do you think any of these Horses have Correct Batteries
Speaking of which and this is a true story: since nursery broke up my 4 year old daughter has started digging out all their noisy toys that no longer make noises and keeps bringing them to me asking to put new batteries in. The other day she brought me her Woody doll that no longer talks and a pack of AA batteries, which were the wrong type. Every time she does this lately I've had to say those aren't the correct batteries and dig out the correct batteries.
Today instead she brought over to me a toy horse and a screwdriver and told me to get the batteries.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
It was the roots of dressage in UK, and they do displays.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
Suggest she check out lancers. Underappreciated but very deadly back in the day, which didn't end until (at least) 19th century.
Her great-grandfather was descended from Cossacks
There ya go! She can do both sides of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" or at least in the Crimean War..
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
Suggest she check out lancers. Underappreciated but very deadly back in the day, which didn't end until (at least) 19th century.
Her great-grandfather was descended from Cossacks
There ya go! She can do both sides of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" or at least in the Crimean War..
One of the family policies is to fight on both sides of a civil war
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
I guess when you were reduced to making the genetic case for preserving the Union you still cared. Oh well, life comes at you fast.
We are just arguing about the specific governance of Rockall during a nuclear winter. If that turns you on, still, knock yourself out
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Tsk. Comparing a Euro election with a General Election.
What’s the increase when you compare the 2017 and 2019 General Elections?
The increase was a net change of 100 seats in the majority. From a minus 20 majority to a majority of 80.
Only because of the corrupt electoral system in the UK
Our electoral system is the best in the world and mainstream. Billions of people vote worldwide using our system because it works. There is no electoral system used by more people.
Are you just making up facts again? Please show your working.
Presumably India makes a big difference. Add in the US, Canada, etc you must be over 1.5bn hence “billions”
Whilst that point is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading. Only 1/3rd of countries use FPTP according to Wikipedia.
"Best in world" is also an opinion, not a fact.
By definition, though, if you believe in FPTP the plurality wins.
And if you believe in the wisdom of the ordinary voter then they choose the best option available
Therefore if a plurality of people in the world use FPTP then it must be the best option available (China is excluded as they don’t have a free say)
They haven't chosen anything.
If they live in a democracy and they haven’t changed it then, by default, they have chosen it...
For fundamentally, where democracy evolved organically or was transplanted from an organic system (eg India) they use FPTP.
Where it was designed and imposed by politicians they use PR
PR gives party politicians more power. I wonder why they chose it?
These countries use FPTP because of the British Empire. That's the only reason. It is a product of colonialism.
They’ve chosen not to change it in the 50+ years since independence.
Personally I’m willing to treat them as mature societies able to make their own decisions about which electoral system they wish to use. I guess you believe they aren’t capable of that?
Apologies for being late to this discussion. In 2014 I married a Malaysian and started to take an interest in their politics. In their 2013 General Election the opposition got 51% of the votes whilst the governing party got 47.5% but won the election by 133 seats to 89. They vote by FPTP, a legacy of British rule. That result comes about because the rural seats have smaller electorates than the cities and you can guess who votes for whom from that. The ruling party had been in power for 60 years and had made no attempt to equalise the size of the constituencies, for reasons which are obvious from this result.
Some may be aware that in 2018 the opposition won the election and frankly even under FPTP I cannot imagine the UK would vote for a party whose leader/family was suspected (and subsequently found guilty) of robbing that country of over a billion pounds. Unfortunately that government didn't last more than two years as money talks loudly here and I suspect at their next general election normal service will be resumed. There had not been enough time/money to redraw the constituency boundaries.
From my experience I cannot agree that PR gives politicians more power, FPTP allows politicians to gerrymander the result. It is the Hawaiian Pizza of all voting systems and allows shysters and criminals to take over a country against the wishes of the majority.
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
Suggest she check out lancers. Underappreciated but very deadly back in the day, which didn't end until (at least) 19th century.
Her great-grandfather was descended from Cossacks
There ya go! She can do both sides of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" or at least in the Crimean War..
One of the family policies is to fight on both sides of a civil war
That assumes there'll only be two sides in such a conflict. Judging by most recent civil wars that seems optimistic, or at least it takes a while to whittle the sides down to two.
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
I guess when you were reduced to making the genetic case for preserving the Union you still cared. Oh well, life comes at you fast.
We are just arguing about the specific governance of Rockall during a nuclear winter. If that turns you on, still, knock yourself out
Am upholding the Irish claim! Come hell, high water OR eighty billion more tons of seagull poop.
Aside from the fact that Canada doesn't, and never has had, a centre-left government, the last election was. Tories 34% Liberals 33% Parties to the left of Trudeau 30%. Upshot. Liberals largest Party 12 short of a majority. Not surprisingly PR is not high on his priority list.
They had an amazing conversion as, coincidentally, it turned out to be less than clear cut on what should replace the current system once they had won under it. Which is surely the truth and not an excuse.
Re Canada, in 1952 the incumbent Liberal-Conservative (it's complicated) provincial government replaced FPTP for provincial general elections with AV. This was done to blunt the electoral prospects of the labor-left Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) precursor to New Democatic Party (NDP). Expectation was that Con voters would give 2nd preferences to Lib & visa versa.
However, winner in 1952 turned out to be brand new Social Credit Party of BC, which went on to rule continuously until early 1970s then dominate provincial government & politics until 1990s. AND which changed elections back to FPTP for the very next election AFTER they achieved power.
Aside from the fact that Canada doesn't, and never has had, a centre-left government, the last election was. Tories 34% Liberals 33% Parties to the left of Trudeau 30%. Upshot. Liberals largest Party 12 short of a majority. Not surprisingly PR is not high on his priority list.
They had an amazing conversion as, coincidentally, it turned out to be less than clear cut on what should replace the current system once they had won under it. Which is surely the truth and not an excuse.
Indeed. The commitment to PR came about because the Grits (Liberals) aka "natural Party of government" had fallen to third place and needed to win a few votes of those on the Right and centre who desperately wanted rid of Harper and his merry band of anti-science GOP wannabe zealots. They had never shown the slightest bit of interest beforehand. Strangely, after getting a majority, then a minority government on 33% never since. The LPC has traditionally been the Party who gain from FPTP.
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
I guess when you were reduced to making the genetic case for preserving the Union you still cared. Oh well, life comes at you fast.
We are just arguing about the specific governance of Rockall during a nuclear winter. If that turns you on, still, knock yourself out
Am upholding the Irish claim! Come hell, high water OR eighty billion more tons of seagull poop.
The Irish claim that was shown to be bollocks?
As always it’s about the sea zone of control not the island itself
Do you think any of these Horses have Correct Batteries
Speaking of which and this is a true story: since nursery broke up my 4 year old daughter has started digging out all their noisy toys that no longer make noises and keeps bringing them to me asking to put new batteries in. The other day she brought me her Woody doll that no longer talks and a pack of AA batteries, which were the wrong type. Every time she does this lately I've had to say those aren't the correct batteries and dig out the correct batteries.
Today instead she brought over to me a toy horse and a screwdriver and told me to get the batteries.
Re Canada, in 1952 the incumbent Liberal-Conservative (it's complicated) provincial government replaced FPTP for provincial general elections with AV. This was done to blunt the electoral prospects of the labor-left Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) precursor to New Democatic Party (NDP). Expectation was that Con voters would give 2nd preferences to Lib & visa versa.
However, winner in 1952 turned out to be brand new Social Credit Party of BC, which went on to rule continuously until early 1970s then dominate provincial government & politics until 1990s. AND which changed elections back to FPTP for the very next election AFTER they achieved power.
Indeed. I had the pleasure of living under a Socred Provincial government and a Mulroney federal one. The current BC NDP minority with Green support is supposedly exploring PR. Watch this space.
Scottish Independence used to vex me. It seemed so important.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
I guess when you were reduced to making the genetic case for preserving the Union you still cared. Oh well, life comes at you fast.
We are just arguing about the specific governance of Rockall during a nuclear winter. If that turns you on, still, knock yourself out
Am upholding the Irish claim! Come hell, high water OR eighty billion more tons of seagull poop.
The Irish claim that was shown to be bollocks?
As always it’s about the sea zone of control not the island itself
What's bollocks in London can be coddle in Dublin, and visa versa.
AND would yez dare argue against the proposition, that Irish birds can out-shit anything that flies, swims or waddles?
Golf has a political connotations for American presidents best AVOIDED. These can be summed up as: > playing instead of working; and > upper-class (rather upper-middle-class) snobbery.
IIRC Woodrow Wilson was first golfing president, followed by Harding who was a typical duffer-golfer fanatic. Harding's reputation for spending large amounts of time on the links enhanced neither his reputation nor that of the golf. One reason why Coolidge & Hoover avoided the game, as of course did FDR for other reasons.
Harry Truman liked to play golf, but he was NOT in same league as Dwight Eisenhower. Indeed, Ike's passion for the game and time he spend on the links because political arguments against him. Of course he was re-elected anyway, but did NOT enhance his image.
Kennedy, LBJ & Nixon lacked Ike's golf mania. Gerry Ford was fairly avid golfer, but kept it under wraps until AFTER he lost 1976 election.
Wasn't until Bill Clinton that presidential golf again because a thing, as it was with Obama. By their time, sport had democratized somewhat, but still retained some tinge & taint of classes versus masses (as in "Caddyshack"). Which is why Trumpsky made such a deal about Obama's golfing.
Golf - best avoided IF you are President of United States. Hardly bar sinister - but NOT helpful politically.
The pics that go along with story, showing Cameron & horse riding through snow are really great - would have done his image good on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific).
Can remember thinking what a dork Mitt Romney was (not for first or last time) in 2016, when he downplayed fact that his wife had competed on USA Olympic team in some equestrian events. On grounds that it looked too elitist. Yeah, no doubt some Dems would have said so. BUT it also looked like she had competed in the Olympics for her country - a pretty GOOD thing methinks. So what if she was wearing English riding getup - should have just put her in a calico shirt & cowgirl hat, and be the Sweetheart of the Rodeo!
Ann Romney was on the US Olympic Dressage team. The 'intellectual' horse riding discipline, as my daughter calls it.
Horse ballet 😃
Hardly. All the moves demonstrated have their origins in the horse's manoeuverability on the battlefield.
Ballet originated in the European courts where everything had a martial aspect
I stand corrected.
Just to be clear, I enjoy watching horse ballet and admire the skill of both the riders and mounts
Have you been to the 17C arena at Bolsover Castle?
Nope. My daughter is just getting interested in horses and history, so jousting is moving up the list
It was the roots of dressage in UK, and they do displays.
@ Charles. More important than the skill or athleticism of either rider or the horse is the communication and bond between the two. Hence it being the most intellectual of the equestrian disciplines.
Trump's denigration of mail-in voting could have a huge impact on the election:
"“He has denigrated mail-in voting to the point that Democrats are dominating requests for absentee ballots,” said David Wasserman, House editor for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report."
It would indeed be ironic if the GOP vote were suppressed because Trump followers refused to get mail-in ballots and then found it difficult to vote on the day in person because of the reduction in polling stations due to COVID.
Comments
This administration is a dangerous shambles.
You are the definition of the establishment so there's no surprise you are in favour of FPTP, and you're trying to dress it up with intellectually dishonest arguments about "mature societies".
I'm sorry but it's total rubbish.
Coalitions agrred after you have no idea what you are voting for. PR leads to coalitions most of the time. Bring in pr here and basically there is no longer any point voting as the 2010 lot proved because whichever party you vote for can throw away all the reasons you voted for them in negotiations
Tories 34%
Liberals 33%
Parties to the left of Trudeau 30%.
Upshot. Liberals largest Party 12 short of a majority.
Not surprisingly PR is not high on his priority list.
Compromises are for grown ups, winner takes all is for children who can't handle compromise.
The idea that the EU alone counts for more than India, Pakistan, Nigeria, USA, Canada and more is perverted nonsense.
I am sure that a lot voted tory in 2015 purely to get an eu referendum. I am equally sure that if the tories had to go back into coalitition that would be one of the first things traded away as politicians decided in dark smoky rooms what was best for them
I grow blueberries here (but the birds get them) and have the odd bilberry growing wild. But the best thing is, I discovered, literally yesterday, that my black mulberry planted in 2003 is fruiting for the first time. Huge excitement.
You’re only defending this because currently you’re benefiting from the system. As soon as that changes you’ll be whinging and whining as much as you do about “Remainers”.
Indeed, IF ever enobled, will take as my title Lord Whortleberry.
< Plug >
I've started blogging a few of the questions from March April in a gardening blog at the Buildhub website for self-builders, where I am a member, if you are interested.
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/blogs/blog/50-the-buildhub-gardening-blog/
< /plug >
Dressage is surely about military parades, not battles - cf the parade ground command By the right, dress! meaning get into an exactly straight line. Doing that with horses, if you are a bit too far forward and to one side an untrained horse and rider will have to ride forward, then round the end of the line, and try again from the back. Dressage means you can nudge your horse backwards and sideways to solve the problem.
That’s how our system works. I know you don’t care because you did in fact get what you want, but you wont forever.
You need to grow up.
Look at your own party in 2010 you went into coalition on the back of your votes. You obviously failed them as they took their votes elsewhere after you betrayed them and traded away the reasons they voted for you. Tell me how you were representing them please. I suspect if all those that voted tory and libdem that thought the coalition wasn't doing what they wanted when they came up with the manifesto then the coalition wouldn't have been in power.
That is the issue with pr you claim you have a majority by claiming the votes of people who wouldnt have given you a vote if they knew what you would do with it. The coalition quite probably had about 30^% vote support given the lib dems were on on about 20% and dropped to 6% when they announced their joint manifesto.
So in absolute power with 30% so much better than being in power with 40%
Do billions of people worldwide use our system? Yes or no?
Is there another electoral system used by "more people"? Yes or no?
The word used was people not countries.
And yet now? Oh god, who cares. Go have a vote. The West is collapsing. Every single western society is going to be drowning in debt for two generations, and that's IF we survive this with a decent vaccine coming along soon. Without that, we face a global roiling - as power moves from west to east - that makes internal "British" politics look like a game of Scrabble during Hurricane Katrina.
Do it. Vote indy. Good luck. Sincerely. Who gives a fucking toss any more. It is just a bunch of rocks in the sea.
Had more people voted in constituencies for an alternative choice, they would have won.
In some places there was a tradition of kids having a day off school to go bilberry picking. I have a suspicion that the best way is to get there early in the morning after a rainy day beforehand.
You come back with purple stains as you say, whereas if you go after a Himalayan Giant blackberry you come back with red punctures like a Frenchman up against Welsh longbows.
Be decent enough to acknowledge other people have their own thoughts and honest opinions.
Be decent enough to acknowledge when other people are right. Even if you disagree with them, you can still be a big enough person to acknowledge someone has a point while disagreeing.
Rationalism is starting to look a bit cringe, and faith is making a comeback
BY MARY HARRINGTON"
https://unherd.com/2020/07/blasphemy-sinfulness-and-the-new-status-faith/
I need either to give up on soft fruit or get serious about bird cages. I must make a plan to defend my mulberries.
Now further say20% of those tory voters only did so because of the rerendum promise. Removing those give tories 25% lib dems 15% labour 40%...your coalition now only has absolute power of 40% as you complained about becaise you stole the votes of those that only voted for tories due to the eu referendum promise. That is precisely the problem with coalitions
They steal the votes and use them to claim a mandate they don't have because people wouldn't have voted for them if they knew the eventual manifesto.
I just object to your assertion that a government elected under FPTP is invalid. It's not. As long as FPTP is the accepted system any government elected under the rules is legitimate. If you don't like it, then campaign to change it.
"Billions of people" use FPTP - is that true or false?
"More people" use FPTP than any other electoral system - is that true or false?
People, not countries. You claimed that the statement was false when the statement was people and asked for working. I gave it. Are you too stubborn to acknowledge I was right, or can you show any working to show that "more people" use any other system?
What about the billions remark? Was that true or false?
In theory, by having the potential for local representatives independent of parties (pace Martin Bell or Andrew Hunter) FPTP has some protection against parties.
At the worst extreme, PR-party list systems are completely captured by the parties.
An entirely reasonable thing to say would be "you are right, more people do use FPTP, but that doesn't make it right to use it and I prefer PR because . . . "
I'm happy to acknowledge when I'm in a minority position. I'm a Conservative who believes in Scottish independence, that's pretty niche and minority, but I'm not going to change my beliefs just because more people think otherwise. Maybe one day my beliefs might be mainstream.
That you're too stubborn to give even an inch on something as demonstrably factual as what I said doesn't look good on you.
You’re also the one who when challenged on your ludicrous assertion that somehow FPTP is used by the majority, when in fact most countries use other systems, is to start going on about white supremacism and racism.
The Bilberry usually referred to in the UK is Vaccinium myrtillus. Called Blaeberry in Scotland.
The one they call go mad for in Sweden is Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Lingonberry there, Cowberry (or sometimes Mountain Bilberry) here. This is more restricted to the uplands (Wales and the Pennines northwards).
Unfortunately these two cross, just to be confusing.
There's also Vaccinium uliginosum - Bog Bilberry. This is mostly restricted to Scotland although there are a few found in the North Pennines.
They are all edible.
If they weren't doing it they'd be (rightly) accused of making it up on the hoof.
Back to politics only way golf can do you good, is being photographed with Tiger Woods.
Though for Democrats such as Truman, Clinton & Obama, golf may have served to make then less threatening to moderate, upper-middle-class Republicans.
Bit hard for average American to imagine a Marxist in a golf cart.
That Tiger Woods?
I did not deny more countries use other systems. I acknowledged that most countries use other systems. However after acknowledging that I also said that was not relevant and doesn't matter. Unless you are saying Europeans matter more than Indians, Pakistanis etc because Europeans are divided into tiny countries.
Do you think Europeans matter more than Indians? Do you think we should ignore only consider the EU because its made up on tiny countries and not blatantly ignore India, Pakistan, the USA etc because they're large countries?
Unless you're prepared to put Indians on an equal footing with Europeans I'm not sure what other word you want me to use instead of supremacism?
Reckon the statute of limitations has run out on his tabloid escapades, to point that it, while you might be attacked for consorting with Tiger Woods, most would consider it chickenshit.
Today instead she brought over to me a toy horse and a screwdriver and told me to get the batteries.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/bolsover-castle/things-to-do/cavalier-horses-at-bolsover/
Some may be aware that in 2018 the opposition won the election and frankly even under FPTP I cannot imagine the UK would vote for a party whose leader/family was suspected (and subsequently found guilty) of robbing that country of over a billion pounds. Unfortunately that government didn't last more than two years as money talks loudly here and I suspect at their next general election normal service will be resumed. There had not been enough time/money to redraw the constituency boundaries.
From my experience I cannot agree that PR gives politicians more power, FPTP allows politicians to gerrymander the result. It is the Hawaiian Pizza of all voting systems and allows shysters and criminals to take over a country against the wishes of the majority.
However, winner in 1952 turned out to be brand new Social Credit Party of BC, which went on to rule continuously until early 1970s then dominate provincial government & politics until 1990s. AND which changed elections back to FPTP for the very next election AFTER they achieved power.
They had never shown the slightest bit of interest beforehand. Strangely, after getting a majority, then a minority government on 33% never since.
The LPC has traditionally been the Party who gain from FPTP.
"Gandhi to become first non-white person on British currency"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/01/gandhi-first-non-white-person-british-currency/
As always it’s about the sea zone of control not the island itself
The current BC NDP minority with Green support is supposedly exploring PR. Watch this space.
AND would yez dare argue against the proposition, that Irish birds can out-shit anything that flies, swims or waddles?
"“He has denigrated mail-in voting to the point that Democrats are dominating requests for absentee ballots,” said David Wasserman, House editor for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report."
It would indeed be ironic if the GOP vote were suppressed because Trump followers refused to get mail-in ballots and then found it difficult to vote on the day in person because of the reduction in polling stations due to COVID.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-campaign-in-crisis-as-aides-attempt-august-reset-before-time-runs-out/2020/08/01/9c208a18-d336-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html