Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Any news from Kensington & Chelsea
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Adam Gray  
View profile  
 More options Jan 2 2006, 5:42 pm
Newsgroups: uk.politics.electoral
From: "Adam Gray" <a...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:42:31 -0000
Local: Mon, Jan 2 2006 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: Any news from Kensington & Chelsea
"Dave J." <requ...@freeuk.com> wrote in message

news:087jr1pldb0h89nm8v1ppd64qbrvr1nv4f@4ax.com...

> In MsgID<dpbnrh$gv...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> within uk.politics.electoral,
> 'Adam Gray' wrote:

>>> The existence and prominence of political parties is what reduces
>>> government to a level similar to football supporters thoughtlessly
>>> supporting 'their' team rather than thinking about which team is best.

>>Do parties elect the representatives of the House of Commons or do the
>>voters?

> Unfortunately the voters have seemingly become a part of the gang
> mentality and prefer to vote for 'their' team than to think. (Those that
> can still be bothered to vote that is)

That would be "the voters do, Adam" would it?  And given that instinctive
political allegiance has never been weaker (part of the reason why turnout
is lower nowadays) you need to come up with a better argument than they
"prefer to vote for their team" - not least because you might presumably
concur that in politics people generally vote for a team that best
represents them - which brings us back to the original point, doesn't it -
voters *choose* to vote for parties because parties best represent their
interests.

> How else could a repeated liar and warmongerer like Blair get back in for
> yet another term? It's because people a) don't see a viable alternative
> and b) are bedazzled into thinking that no alternative would stand a
> chance against the power of the parties.

Oh dear, off the valium again, aren't we?  Labour got back in for another
term because a) people en masse don't agree with your lies about the Prime
Minister b) aren't so dumb as you are that one issue obsesses them to the
point of evident insanity, and c) don't see a viable alternative.

Presumably it's your contention that the voters of Wyre Forest and Blaenau
Gwent have been somehow unplugged from the Matrix, is it?

> Oh, and of course, the way that political campaigns are distilled into a
> few minutes of advert style air time rather than deeper discussions into
> what is really wrong and how to fix it.

They're not.

>>Can you point me to which UK law obliges voters to cast their vote for
>>political parties and not non-partisans?

> The law of laziness crossed with the power of the media over the
> unthinking.

That would be "there isn't one, Adam" would it?

Adam


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google