There is no political party I can vote for

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
This and other threads do seem a little anti democratic and elitist .

“I know best and others have been conned “

If trump had said the boundary commission had stolen the election then you would be up in arms about conspiracy

Take a step back and look through a helicopter vision lens (nice mixed metaphor )
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
People voted for a particular person in their constituency not sure if any proof they regret that yet

Never said anything about regret.

As for your post above, anti-democratic is a bizarre slur really. One that the right and Brexiters have historically liked to throw around.

There's nothing anti-democratic about wanting to protect democracy.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
Never said anything about regret.

As for your post above, anti-democratic is a bizarre slur really. One that the right and Brexiters have historically liked to throw around.

There's nothing anti-democratic about wanting to protect democracy.
Then you are definitely missing the point
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
That’s an opinion that I’m sure the boundary commission would challenge

I doubt the boundary commission cares what I say and due to a change in 2020 Parliament no longer gets to reject a boundary commission report outright. It goes through an order in council when all 4 reports have been laid before parliament, then the completed review has 4 months to be approved by the Privy Council before they take effect at the next general election. Government can only make changes if requested to do so by the commission. As the Government sets the framework for boundary reviews, it's pretty much an undemocratic stitch up. Dressed up as Politicians being removed from the process. Boundary reviews remain just as gerrymandering as ever.

This and other threads do seem a little anti democratic and elitist .

“I know best and others have been conned “

If trump had said the boundary commission had stolen the election then you would be up in arms about conspiracy

Take a step back and look through a helicopter vision lens (nice mixed metaphor )


Anti democratic and elitist would be denying people being able to express those views. Trump is irrelevant to this discussion. The UK's democracy functions in a fundamentally different way to the US. In the end it's the Monarch who'd decide what to do in the event of a disputed election if politicians and the courts fail to resolve the issue, once the Monarch made a decision that would be it. Constitutional Monarchy is what we have, with democracy tacked onto it over time.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
It seems you think I’m right wing and a brexiteer however you can’t be further from the truth . What I am is a liberal (with a small l) and would and do pick up the right wing with the same vigour when they spout divisive rhetoric .
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
I doubt the boundary commission cares what I say and due to a change in 2020 Parliament no longer gets to reject a boundary commission report outright. It goes through an order in council when all 4 reports have been laid before parliament, then the completed review has 4 months to be approved by the Privy Council before they take effect at the next general election. Government can only make changes if requested to do so by the commission. As the Government sets the framework for boundary reviews, it's pretty much an undemocratic stitch up. Dressed up as Politicians being removed from the process. Boundary reviews remain just as gerrymandering as ever.




Anti democratic and elitist would be denying people being able to express those views. Trump is irrelevant to this discussion. The UK's democracy functions in a fundamentally different way to the US. In the end it's the Monarch who'd decide what to do in the event of a disputed election if politicians and the courts fail to resolve the issue, once the Monarch made a decision that would be it. Constitutional Monarchy is what we have, with democracy tacked onto it over time.
So the boundary commission is none political but that’s a problem

“Unelected boundary commission scandal”
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Calling someone right wing and a brexiter is just as much a slur to stop debate

I didn't, I said it's what they do. We were just talking about tactical voting, and you decided this thread and others now sounded a little "anti-democratic and elitist".

I can see no justification for that assertion in this context.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
I didn't, I said it's what they do. We were just talking about tactical voting, and you decided this thread and others now sounded a little "anti-democratic and elitist".

I can see no justification for that assertion in this context.
We have to beg to differ on both points
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
We have to beg to differ on both points

Well that's why it's a discussion forum :)

I just don't think we need to go overboard with an application of tactical voting being somehow problematic. It really isn't.

And remember the Brexit Party played the game at the last election. Stood down in certain areas so the Tories could seal the vote.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
Well that's why it's a discussion forum :)

I just don't think we need to go overboard with an application of tactical voting being somehow problematic. It really isn't.

And remember the Brexit Party played the game at the last election. Stood down in certain areas so the Tories could seal the vote.
As a discussion forum I can also express an opinion on tactical voting .

Not problematic just not something I’d do
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
As a discussion forum I can also express an opinion on tactical voting .

Not problematic just not something I’d do

I gathered. Others can decide for themselves.

From what I've seen though I suspect many won't haven't have a problem with it. And it's certainly discussed a lot outside of this forum too. Such is the way our voting system is implemented.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
As a discussion forum I can also express an opinion on tactical voting .

Not problematic just not something I’d do
It’s good really we can discuss and disagree .

I remember back in the day, think it was you, that we used to take Sonic67 apart

And also the Russian bots (?) who seem to have disappeared
 

morenish

Well-known Member
If your aim is to get rid of a corrupt Government, then tactical voting is perfectly legitimate. Sticking with principles won't get you anywhere with a system as broken as First Past the Post and safe seats.
Totally agree with you Tapzilla.

Site - Make votes matter;
With First Past the Post, Parliament does not reflect the way we vote. It denies millions of people representation of their choosing.

In the 2019 general election, the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and Brexit Party received 16% (5.2 million) of votes between them, yet they shared just 2% of seats.

The Liberal Democrats were particularly disadvantaged by FPTP, losing a seat despite increasing their overall vote share by 4%.

When so many voters are denied a voice, Parliament fails to reflect the people it is supposed to represent. Millions of us go without a say in crucial national decisions - excluded not only from government, but from holding government to account. This isn't just bad for democracy; it's bad for our entire politics and society.

With Proportional Representation political diversity is reflected in Parliament, not suppressed. PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. It would mean that if a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people's range of views and perspectives.

I will definitely be researching organisations like, make votes matter and electoral reforms, to find out if there is any hope of PR being implemented in the near future.

I want to know of any progress, opponents and what we can do to support.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
However it can be seen as none representing local voters . As at the moment we vote for a local Representative not a party
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
It’s good really we can discuss and disagree .

I remember back in the day, think it was you, that we used to take Sonic67 apart

And also the Russian bots (?) who seem to have disappeared

There was never a poster like Sonic. Let's just say they were interesting days :laugh: So often he was factually incorrect, yet he still refused to accept it. Even with the evidence.

Thankfully discourse - despite disagreements - feels much more authentic, reliable these days.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
There was never a poster like Sonic. Let's just say they were interesting days :laugh: So often he was factually incorrect, yet he still refused to accept it. Even with the evidence.

Thankfully discourse - despite disagreements - feels much more authentic, reliable these days.

He’d be an interesting poster now , I was away from AVF when he got banned ,

So many twisted arguments , usually punctuated that he served in Iraq so that made every political argument he made correct .

He also introduced to me the phrase “ job jobbed” which seemed to be an answer to complicated problems with simple answers that made no sense

The Russian sympathisers that were here before were my favourites though as so rubbish At hiding their identity . They would get so much more little truck now but it was us , I think, that shot them down
 

morenish

Well-known Member
It’s good really we can discuss and disagree .

I remember back in the day, think it was you, that we used to take Sonic67 apart

And also the Russian bots (?) who seem to have disappeared
Seb,

Discussing and disagreeing is healthy, we all have different views and I have been privileged to have found a forum that accepts this.

My view has always been that there is nothing wrong with putting an argument forward and being listened to and in turn, listen to their argument.

Many people confuse argument with a quarrel which is absolutely counterproductive.

Regards.
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
Seb,

Discussing and disagreeing is healthy, we all have different views and I have been privileged to have found a forum that accepts this.

My view has always been that there is nothing wrong with putting an argument forward and being listened to and in turn, listen to their argument.

Many people confuse argument with a quarrel which is absolutely counterproductive.

Regards.
As long as the other party agrees that it’s a discussion not a total dig at their core belief 😀
 

Seb Briggs

Distinguished Member
It’s the answer to many questions , and as I said understanding that people have different political views but aren’t evil because of that
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
Don’t agree with tactical voting or voting against something . Stick with your principles and who knows maybe if your principles are the same as others you can change things . Voting against some party for a party you don’t really want in power seems a strange logic
‘Who knows’. Well we do know, don’t we? Its simple electoral maths. The only realistic way to get the Tories out is for enough Labour candidates to prevail. It’s not magic, it’s maths.

Principles are fine things. But they won’t keep you warm in the winter.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Paramount + UK launch: Halo, Star Trek and Beavis, and all the latest 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Netflix confirms ad-supported option is on the way
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Rotel announces 60th Anniversary Diamond Series Hi-Fi duo
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Paramount+ launches in the UK and Ireland
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Hisense launches A9H 4K OLED TV
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for July 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom