-
Tempted to do a bare arms joke but will leave that for someone else.
lol. oops.
Yes, things change but because many people will use the argument to that it's been like this since Christ was a lad, often they don't change.
I'm not sure I follow this.
I do think Blair has a reasonable point; it isn't hard to understand FPTP and if you want to do a protest vote that's cool, but you'll get what you get.
I'm not sure this is about protest votes. It's the position that any vote that isn't for an expected winner (the presumed knowledge of which is already a democratically problematic premise) is also an implicit vote for the winner. It's intellectual gymnastics to support Labour's mandate.
-
I'm not sure I follow this.
Apologies, I wasn't really making a point, just a sideways glance at the gun control debate in the US which doesn't seem to be a good example of "things change".
I'm not sure this is about protest votes.
Perhaps I've misunderstood Blair's point. In many constituencies, there is a genuine run off between two candidates. If you choose to vote for someone else, you are likely to end up favouring one of the other two candidates.
I genuinely don't think there are any mental gymnastics required to support Labour's mandate. It's as valid as any other majority govt we have had, and you could argue considerably more valid than those govts which changed leader and direction within their term.
ChasnotRobert
Tempted to do a bare arms joke but will leave that for someone else.
Yes, things change but because many people will use the argument that it's been like this since Christ was a lad, often they don't change.
I do think Blair has a reasonable point; it isn't hard to understand FPTP and if you want to do a protest vote that's cool, but you'll get what you get.