It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
I know that's a joke but it applies more to us: we hate Congress, we just want Obama or Trump to make everything okay.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
KDdidit wrote:
America wrote:
So the Tories did everything they could to lose, but won anyways.


Or they lost because they're the ones still stuck in charge with Brexit.

This is such an American-centric way of looking at it.

"Brexit lead to Trump. Trump is bad! British see Trump bad! British say no more Brexit because they no like Trump."

The Tories "lost" (they still control the government...so I wouldn't use that particular word) because they rushed a snap election and thought they had it in the bag anyways. But when party infrastructure is disorganized and unprepared it invites the unexpected. Sound familiar?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers. In extreme examples it led to the rise of the Nazis. So countries create a clearing mechanism, say 5% of the vote, before you can enter Parliament. It took Belgium nearly two years to form a government because of how fractured the parties were.

For all the attractions of Parliamentary systems, they are mostly unstable. Look at how weak the Japanese government had been prior to Abe. They went through like 8 PM's in just a few years. Our system creates a strong government with a lot of built in checks to prevent wild swings in laws (we call it gridlock).

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
denisdman wrote:
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers. In extreme examples it led to the rise of the Nazis. So countries create a clearing mechanism, say 5% of the vote, before you can enter Parliament. It took Belgium nearly two years to form a government because of how fractured the parties were.

For all the attractions of Parliamentary systems, they are mostly unstable. Look at how weak the Japanese government had been prior to Abe. They went through like 8 PM's in just a few years. Our system creates a strong government with a lot of built in checks to prevent wild swings in laws (we call it gridlock).

I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers.


The LibDems are the biggest advocates for proportional representation, obviously because it would help them the most.

First-past-the-post helped the Tories immensely last night because Labour and the SNP split the vote in a bunch of Scottish constituencies. I don't think they'll be so lucky next time around.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 22545
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
America wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
America wrote:
So the Tories did everything they could to lose, but won anyways.


Or they lost because they're the ones still stuck in charge with Brexit.

This is such an American-centric way of looking at it.

"Brexit lead to Trump. Trump is bad! British see Trump bad! British say no more Brexit because they no like Trump."

The Tories "lost" (they still control the government...so I wouldn't use that particular word) because they rushed a snap election and thought they had it in the bag anyways. But when party infrastructure is disorganized and unprepared it invites the unexpected. Sound familiar?


Wow, sounds like you're actually the one with Trump on the brain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
denisdman wrote:
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers. In extreme examples it led to the rise of the Nazis. So countries create a clearing mechanism, say 5% of the vote, before you can enter Parliament. It took Belgium nearly two years to form a government because of how fractured the parties were.

For all the attractions of Parliamentary systems, they are mostly unstable. Look at how weak the Japanese government had been prior to Abe. They went through like 8 PM's in just a few years. Our system creates a strong government with a lot of built in checks to prevent wild swings in laws (we call it gridlock).

I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)


Israel's current government is a perfect example where far right nut job parties are required for the government coalition.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Curious Hair wrote:
denisdman wrote:
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers.


The LibDems are the biggest advocates for proportional representation, obviously because it would help them the most.

First-past-the-post helped the Tories immensely last night because Labour and the SNP split the vote in a bunch of Scottish constituencies. I don't think they'll be so lucky next time around.


First past the post is designed to force the country into a two party system. But what is unique about the UK is that it is actually several countries in one, so special interest parties have been able to take seats in Scotland and NI on relatively narrow issues.

The LibDems made a vote on proportional representation part of the coalition agreement with Cameron.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)

Another country that does not have a constitution. These countries like the UK and Israel deep down would like to emulate the rigid, stable American system as opposed to the chaotic shitshows they currently have. Ripping up the constitution is going backwards, I don't understand your love affair with countries that dont have one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
denisdman wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
denisdman wrote:
The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers. In extreme examples it led to the rise of the Nazis. So countries create a clearing mechanism, say 5% of the vote, before you can enter Parliament. It took Belgium nearly two years to form a government because of how fractured the parties were.

For all the attractions of Parliamentary systems, they are mostly unstable. Look at how weak the Japanese government had been prior to Abe. They went through like 8 PM's in just a few years. Our system creates a strong government with a lot of built in checks to prevent wild swings in laws (we call it gridlock).

I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)


Israel's current government is a perfect example where far right nut job parties are required for the government coalition.

I'd say that their influence is strongly overstated. Netanyahu is in power (and has remained so since 2009) on the back of a strong economy. Those outside of Israel look at it and think the conflict drives voters, but I can attest from living through 2 election cycles there it is the economy that really determines who wins. If the next election is held during a slowdown, you can be a Labor or Yesh Atid led coalition will take over from Likud.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
denisdman wrote:

First past the post is designed to force the country into a two party system. But what is unique about the UK is that it is actually several countries in one, so special interest parties have been able to take seats in Scotland and NI on relatively narrow issues.

The LibDems made a vote on proportional representation part of the coalition agreement with Cameron.

And the USA is 50 countries in one. You want the Texas First! party to decide who runs a coaltion government?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
America wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)

Another country that does not have a constitution. These countries like the UK and Israel deep down would like to emulate the rigid, stable American system as opposed to the chaotic shitshows they currently have. Ripping up the constitution is going backwards, I don't understand your love affair with countries that dont have one.

You're so full of shit :lol:

I suggest living outside US borders for a period of time. You'll see these parliamentary systems actually get things done as the coalitions require real compromise to govern whereas we have our joke ass system where we have 2 large parties (and multiple factions within them) that are warring with each other and keeping anything from ever passing. See Trump's dead-on-arrival agenda despite having both houses of Congress.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
America wrote:
denisdman wrote:

First past the post is designed to force the country into a two party system. But what is unique about the UK is that it is actually several countries in one, so special interest parties have been able to take seats in Scotland and NI on relatively narrow issues.

The LibDems made a vote on proportional representation part of the coalition agreement with Cameron.

And the USA is 50 countries in one. You want the Texas First! party to decide who runs a coaltion government?

No... just no... What you describe is a Confederacy. We tried this during the Articles of Confederation and it failed for the same reason the CSA failed.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Our system is well designed. The problem is the politicians don't fulfill their duties. How about a budget in regular order rather than continuing resolutions? How about approving judges instead of holding up nominations? How about the President going to Congress for authorization rather than using the bureaucracy to do what you want?

Every other system is flawed. The UK system is highly centralized as opposed to our Federalism where many decisions are made at the local level. The House of Lords isn't elected. My goodness, they have a monarchy on the public payroll.

Many countries have a President and Prime Minister in Parliament, which makes no sense. Lots of figure heads in the other systems.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
You are right in that unitary governments like the UK can get a lot done. That is at the expense of stability and checks and balances.

Imagine if Trump could ram through anything he wanted without any check on his power? Our systems requires a lot of consensus to pass laws. I would contend that is good thing despite the gridlock.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
Many countries have a President and Prime Minister in Parliament, which makes no sense. Lots of figure heads in the other systems.


That actually makes a lot of sense. Like I said, everyone else divides head of state and head of government.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Curious Hair wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Many countries have a President and Prime Minister in Parliament, which makes no sense. Lots of figure heads in the other systems.


That actually makes a lot of sense. Like I said, everyone else divides head of state and head of government.


Well you see what happened in Turkey where the President just moved from figure head to authoritarian. Russia has elements of this. Germany and Italy have those figure heads right now. You still see Merkel dealing with foreign powers even though there is technically a President who is head of state. And France has problems when they go through "cohabitation" of their President and PM.

I am ok with all these different systems. I am just pointing out that I haven't found any of them to be vastly superior to ours.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16059
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Curious Hair wrote:
I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.


Getting money out of politics would help.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Curious Hair wrote:
I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.


Spot on sir.

I look at this way- if you have people like Harry Reid, Trump, McConnell, it really doesn't matter what system you design. They just refuse to do their jobs. Our system requires compromise, and the politicians want 100% of everything and refuse to compromise.

They can't even pass budgets. We're at the debt ceiling again. These are basic functions of all governments. They only do their jobs when there is a gun pointed at their heads. And Springfield is setting a new low for incompetence and lack of compromise.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
veganfan21 wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.


Getting money out of politics would help.



I know that seems like the answer. But in a society with broad free speech rules, I just can't accept that we limit people from spending their money as they see fit for political interests. How would you campaign without money? Public funding of elections?

What if you and I wanted to support gay rights with an advertising campaign, would that be allowed?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16059
pizza_Place: Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.


Getting money out of politics would help.



I know that seems like the answer. But in a society with broad free speech rules, I just can't accept that we limit people from spending their money as they see fit for political interests. How would you campaign without money? Public funding of elections?

What if you and I wanted to support gay rights with an advertising campaign, would that be allowed?


I don't think your example is a good analogy but I see the basic point you're raising, of course. The current system is in need of major revisions, in my view, and yes I personally would consider something like public funding though I wouldn't necessarily prohibit some campaign finance practices that are legal currently. My view, as underdeveloped as it is, is close to the ACLU's position. I believe they support meaningful form of the current system while preserving the spending as free speech foundation. To be clear though, I absolutely buy the argument made by Sanders and others that politicians and elections can occasionally be bought. Do you?

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31942
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Money has been corrosive for politics. The tax code is the best example with so many goodies for all of us. The mortgage interest deduction is patently unfair and largely favors wealthy homeowners. It is the dumbest thing ever. Why should renters not be able to deduct their rent if owners can deduct their mortgage interest?

But I believe so deeply in the U.S. Constitution and free speech (political free speech being one of the core elements) that I can't see a way around it.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 22545
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 5756386304



Edit: also

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 91376.html
Quote:
The Government believes it has enough support in the House of Commons to pass the Queen's Speech following talks with the DUP.

After announcing a date for the speech setting out Theresa May's legislative agenda, a Tory source said discussions with the Northern Irish unionists had been "progressing".

But the source stopped short of saying that a deal had been finalised with the DUP and left the way open for further negotiations to continue, even after the monarch has set out what laws Ms May wants to pass.


This is going to be a mess. A right proper mess.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Wow what a great system they have too bad we don't have regional parties deciding who forms a government in the USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
The founder of the DUP once called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ to his face. That's almost as bad as the time that one guy called Obama a liar.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
America wrote:
Wow what a great system they have too bad we don't have regional parties deciding who forms a government in the USA.

yeah our system of 2 out of touch parties where the politicians draw maps choose their voters to make sure 90% of the seats never change hands is so great. Our government is really in touch with and accountable to the people. :roll:

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Teresa May
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54161
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Epilogue:

Quote:
Labour have won their first seat in Worthing for more than 40 years.

The party's candidate Beccy Cooper has claimed a shock win in the Worthing Borough Council by-election for Marine ward.

Labour took 47.8 per cent of the vote, an almost 30 per cent increase in their vote, while the defending Conservatives vote dropped six per cent to 38.8 per cent.

The victory follows on from major gains the party made in Adur and Worthing in the last election.

Dr Cooper, standing in Worthing West, more than doubled her party's efforts from two years earlier by securing 18,091 votes while Sophie Cook standing in East Worthing and Shoreham cut Tim Loughton's majority from around to 15,000 to just 5,000.

West Sussex County Councillor Michael Jones, Labour, said: "This is seismic.

"In West Sussex politics terms, it's the equivalent of the asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out all the dinosaurs."


Labour wins a special election running away while our Democrats seem to lose theirs.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group