"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/16 09:09, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1492419 20160608 195822 harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 08:43:29 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1491940 20160607 160434 harry wrote:
But be sure to look at this. There is a plot in our own HoP to ignore
any referendum result they
don
't like:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36457120

The primary purpose of Parliament is to do what is best for Britain,
and they are MUCH better qualified to do than you are.

You are a gullible half wit.
I have met a few politicians.
Most are less smart/intelligent than you are.
They have a craving for wealth and power and there's no arse licking
they won't do to get it.

The picture the public gets of them is carefully crafted.
Nowadays only half wits such as yourself believe it.

They are by and large scum. Thick and stupid scum at that.

Thank you for proving me right!

For once in my life I have to agree with Harry. Politicians are by and
large a sorry lot.

Yes, but mob rule doesnt actually work very well.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 22:13:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurrgmail.com wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 17:26:59 UTC+1, Andy Cap wrote:

I obviously
agree that you can't simply do all the public demand but they can
express and direct a political direction.

No, the public does not direct the political direction.
It only expresses, plus gets a limited directing role once every few
years.

And that is how it directs the political direction because even the
stupidest politician knows that that determines who is the govt.

and knows that once elected they can do the things they wouldn't
say at election time. And not do the things they promised.

And knows that if they do too much of that, and the alternative govt
isnt much worse, that plenty of the voters who matter, those who
actually consider who they vote for, will consider that when voting.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:26:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 13:11, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 12:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who
voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in
the
foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet still
gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise
marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on
the
paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a miniscule
difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits who
will never get anything changed.

I'm one of those shirt term tactical voting ****wits who got you a
referendum.

By voting 'UKIP' in a safe tory seat.

If you voted UKIP, you're not a tactical voter. I was referring to
people who will only vote for a party they think will get into power.


With respect I think that is a poor definition of 'tactical'

To ma tactical voting means using your vote to best achieve a given
result, irrespective of underlying party loyalty.


That might mean voting liberal in a marginal to keep labour out, yes,
which is as you say voting for the party that *has a chance*.

But in safe seats, selecting which opposition to vote for if you don't
like the incumbent, carries a whole new dimension.

You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually espousing UKIP
as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

Rather a silly way to vote IMO when that party isnt going to get that
candidate elected.

You're just wasting your vote.

You'd be better voting for the candidate that could get elected
whose party is closer to what you prefer policy wise.

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:10:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:09:11 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 12:46:56 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in the foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet still gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on the paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a miniscule difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits who will never get anything changed.

I see you're someone incapable of logic or deduction. And with a large enough ego to think he knows what he cannot possibly know.

Do you understand the difference between long term and short term?

I see what I said completely passed you by. No worries.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:31:23 +0100, wrote:

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:10:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:09:11 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 12:46:56 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in the foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet still gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on the paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a miniscule difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits who will never get anything changed.

I see you're someone incapable of logic or deduction. And with a large enough ego to think he knows what he cannot possibly know.

Do you understand the difference between long term and short term?

I see what I said completely passed you by. No worries.

You: "If you want your vote to make a miniscule difference there are about 2 options."
That statement is false.

--
It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:24:18 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:26:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 13:11, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 12:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who
voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in
the
foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet still
gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise
marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on
the
paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a miniscule
difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits who
will never get anything changed.

I'm one of those shirt term tactical voting ****wits who got you a
referendum.

By voting 'UKIP' in a safe tory seat.

If you voted UKIP, you're not a tactical voter. I was referring to
people who will only vote for a party they think will get into power.


With respect I think that is a poor definition of 'tactical'

To ma tactical voting means using your vote to best achieve a given
result, irrespective of underlying party loyalty.


That might mean voting liberal in a marginal to keep labour out, yes,
which is as you say voting for the party that *has a chance*.

But in safe seats, selecting which opposition to vote for if you don't
like the incumbent, carries a whole new dimension.

You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually espousing UKIP
as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

Rather a silly way to vote IMO when that party isnt going to get that
candidate elected.

You're just wasting your vote.

You'd be better voting for the candidate that could get elected
whose party is closer to what you prefer policy wise.

You're only thinking of the results of THIS election.

--
The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news snip

You're only thinking of the results of THIS election.

Thinking? Wodney?
Yea, right.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:47:30 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.

The real choice doesn't have a chance because nobody votes for them
because they think they don't have a chance.

The one you choose to vote for doesn't have a chance
because only a minority think they are worth voting for.

You're just perpetuating the problem.

Nope, recognising the reality that they are politically irrelevant.

I don't even buy the turnip's line that the only reason there is
a referendum is because of the vote UKIP got. IMO the real
reason for the referendum is that a significant number of the
Tory pollys want out of the EU and that's the reason for the
referendum, nothing to do with UKIP.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:08:59 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:47:30 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.

The real choice doesn't have a chance because nobody votes for them
because they think they don't have a chance.

The one you choose to vote for doesn't have a chance
because only a minority think they are worth voting for.

No, a lot vote stupidly and tactically like you. It needs some people like me to vote for them so they can see there's a chance of them getting somewhere.

You're just perpetuating the problem.

Nope, recognising the reality that they are politically irrelevant.

I don't even buy the turnip's line that the only reason there is
a referendum is because of the vote UKIP got. IMO the real
reason for the referendum is that a significant number of the
Tory pollys want out of the EU and that's the reason for the
referendum, nothing to do with UKIP.

UKIP is made of ex-tories.

--
Pokemon (n), a Rastafarian proctologist.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:41:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/06/16 18:08, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:14:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:08, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:02:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 15:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/16 12:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who
voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in
the
foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet
still
gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost
duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise
marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on
the
paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a
miniscule
difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits
who
will never get anything changed.

I'm one of those shirt term tactical voting ****wits who got you a
referendum.

By voting 'UKIP' in a safe tory seat.

How did that work?
At the last election UKIP and labour weren't offering a referendum
only
the Torys were. So you actually voted not to have a referendum.

UKIP if it had a majority wouldn't need a referendum.

UKIP was never going to get a majority in our first past the post
system, so you weren't voting tactically, you were voting sensibly
like me.


???

No, I was voting to achieve a tactical objective.

You achieved **** all as they got **** all seats.

That was never the tactical objective.

That objective was to scare the tories into holding a referendum.

From a party that only got what? 3 seats?

You really have no idea what UKIP is all about do you?

You think its like some grubby labour or tory party, only interested in
career jobs in politics.

The purpose of UKIP is simple. Get Britain out of the EU by any means
possible.

Agreed on that last part.

--
Why is a black bank balance good, but a black credit rating bad? Why isn't it a red credit rating?

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:51:19 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour
HQ, that you don't like their policies, without ever actually
espousing UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to
you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the
parties and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason
to vote UKIP.

Now I know you're deluded. It's the reason the vast majority who voted
UKIP did. As you'd know if you ever attended one of their non filmed
meetings.

I assume you realise that was written by The Natural Philosopher and not
me.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

If they like used car salesmen, yes.

List the policies of UKIP you disagree with.

Having any MEPs at all, just to fund UKIP.

Wanting Britain to leave the EU.

Dragging Farage back into UKIP when he had quit.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:24:18 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:26:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 13:11, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 12:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone who
voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves in
the
foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet
still
gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost
duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise
marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box on
the
paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a
miniscule
difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits
who
will never get anything changed.

I'm one of those shirt term tactical voting ****wits who got you a
referendum.

By voting 'UKIP' in a safe tory seat.

If you voted UKIP, you're not a tactical voter. I was referring to
people who will only vote for a party they think will get into power.


With respect I think that is a poor definition of 'tactical'

To ma tactical voting means using your vote to best achieve a given
result, irrespective of underlying party loyalty.


That might mean voting liberal in a marginal to keep labour out, yes,
which is as you say voting for the party that *has a chance*.

But in safe seats, selecting which opposition to vote for if you don't
like the incumbent, carries a whole new dimension.

You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually espousing
UKIP
as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

Rather a silly way to vote IMO when that party isnt going to get that
candidate elected.

You're just wasting your vote.

You'd be better voting for the candidate that could get elected
whose party is closer to what you prefer policy wise.

You're only thinking of the results of THIS election.

Nope, all future elections, particularly when voting for
a particular candidate like say Boris who could very well
end up putting one hell of a bomb under his party.

Gets harder with political sluts like Churchill tho.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:08:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:47:30 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.

The real choice doesn't have a chance because nobody votes for them
because they think they don't have a chance.

The one you choose to vote for doesn't have a chance
because only a minority think they are worth voting for.

No, a lot vote stupidly

Yes, plenty just vote for the same party regardless, but
that isn't stupid if one party is a lot closer to what you
want to see than the other that could possible form govt.

and tactically like you.

I don't actually bother to vote at all, because how I vote
is always completely irrelevant to what the result will be.

It needs some people like me to vote for them so they can see there's a
chance of them getting somewhere.

It does nothing of the sort. You're just wasting your vote
except in the sense of indicating that something like 18%
of the country that bothers to vote do vote UKIP etc and that
a much smaller percentage actually vote for the greens etc.

You're just perpetuating the problem.

Nope, recognising the reality that they are politically irrelevant.

I don't even buy the turnip's line that the only reason there is
a referendum is because of the vote UKIP got. IMO the real
reason for the referendum is that a significant number of the
Tory pollys want out of the EU and that's the reason for the
referendum, nothing to do with UKIP.

UKIP is made of ex-tories.

Its made of a lot more than ex tories.

That is the only one they manage to get elected to Westminster
but that one would have got reelected whatever party he was part of.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:41:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 18:08, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:14:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:08, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:02:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 15:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 12:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/16 12:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:22:11 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 20:45:24 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:15:50 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 19:31:54 UTC+1, James Wilkinson
wrote:

If they significantly ignore our referendum vote, everyone
who
voted leave will not vote Tory again. They've shot themselves
in
the
foot.

Nonsense. Each party makes itself unlelectable in turn, yet
still
gets elected. Who else is there to vote for? It's an almost
duopoly.

There are usually about 8 options to vote for. Try the legalise
marijuana party. You know they won't back down on their
policies.

You can vote for your cat if you want to, just draw another box
on
the
paper. It's equally useful. If you want your vote to make a
miniscule
difference there are about 2 options.

I take it you're one of those short term tactical voting ****wits
who
will never get anything changed.

I'm one of those shirt term tactical voting ****wits who got you a
referendum.

By voting 'UKIP' in a safe tory seat.

How did that work?
At the last election UKIP and labour weren't offering a referendum
only
the Torys were. So you actually voted not to have a referendum.

UKIP if it had a majority wouldn't need a referendum.

UKIP was never going to get a majority in our first past the post
system, so you weren't voting tactically, you were voting sensibly
like me.


???

No, I was voting to achieve a tactical objective.

You achieved **** all as they got **** all seats.

That was never the tactical objective.

That objective was to scare the tories into holding a referendum.

From a party that only got what? 3 seats?

It wasn't the number of seats that mattered on that, it
was the percentage of the national vote that mattered.

Not that I believe that the Torys were scared into having
a referendum by the national vote UKIP got, the referendum
was the result of so many Torys wanting to leave the EU.

You really have no idea what UKIP is all about do you?

You think its like some grubby labour or tory party, only interested in
career jobs in politics.

The purpose of UKIP is simple. Get Britain out of the EU by any means
possible.

Agreed on that last part.

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:47:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually espousing
UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the parties
and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason to
vote UKIP.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common sense.

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:17:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason
to vote UKIP.

Now I know you're deluded. It's the reason the vast majority who voted
UKIP did. As you'd know if you ever attended one of their non filmed
meetings.

I assume you realise that was written by The Natural Philosopher and not
me.

Yes - the little arrows tell me who has said what. Didn't you know that?

But since you didn't disagree with him...

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

If they like used car salesmen, yes.

List the policies of UKIP you disagree with.

If they actually had any I'd most likely disagree with them. Because any
which looked remotely sensible would be lies.

Ah, dodging and weaving as usual Plowperson.
You really are brainwashed/dead.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:47:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour
HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually
espousing
UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to
you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the
parties
and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason to
vote UKIP.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.

He lied thru his teeth when he said that he would resign
from UKIP if he didnt get his seat in Westminster.

dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.


I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.
Thereby is the path to hell. I'm not surprised to read that you
have no principles, Typical remain person. I'm still waiting for the
positive case for remaining from you!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
James wrote:

but the UK does not have the concept of "write ins" so you cannot
actually vote for your cat


You can if you pay for it to run in the election. Did someone not do
something similar once for a laugh? Entering an animal or a fictitious
alien etc?

Yup. And Boris got elected.


And the next time it was done Khan was elected!

On 10/06/2016 06:28, harry wrote:

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.



Hmm?
He's a politician, his lips move, enough said.

On 10/06/2016 10:32, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.


I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.
Thereby is the path to hell. I'm not surprised to read that you have
no principles, Typical remain person. I'm still waiting for the positive
case for remaining from you!

You will wait a long time as I don't regard you as worth wasting time on.

On 10/06/16 18:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2016 06:28, harry wrote:

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.



Hmm?
He's a politician, his lips move, enough said.

Actually he's not a career politician. Hes a conviction politician.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2016 10:32, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.


I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.
Thereby is the path to hell. I'm not surprised to read that you have
no principles, Typical remain person. I'm still waiting for the positive
case for remaining from you!

You will wait a long time as I don't regard you as worth wasting time on.
Ah, So you have no positive case!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/06/16 18:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2016 06:28, harry wrote:

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.



Hmm?
He's a politician, his lips move, enough said.

Actually he's not a career politician. Hes a conviction politician.

They are even bigger liars than career politicians.

in 1493132 20160610 184145 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/06/16 18:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2016 06:28, harry wrote:

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.



Hmm?
He's a politician, his lips move, enough said.

Actually he's not a career politician. Hes a conviction politician.

Aaah! You're in love ...

On 07/06/2016 16:04, harry wrote:

But be sure to look at this. There is a plot in our own HoP to ignore any referendum result they don't like:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36457120

Good, I was thinking that we might need someone like Guy Fawkes, but a
bit more successful. A small majority should to be enough to make such a
large change to our constitution.

--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:29:57 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:47:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or Labour
HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually
espousing
UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to
you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the
parties
and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason to
vote UKIP.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.

He lied thru his teeth when he said that he would resign
from UKIP if he didnt get his seat in Westminster.

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of seats.

--
I remember your brother Jimmy, crying one summer's day,
"Why do you cry, young Jimmy?" I heard your granddad say.
"'Cause I can't do what the big boys do, that's why I cry," said Jim,
"Move over then," said your granddad, and he sat down and cried with him..

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:18:52 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have.

--
A soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:24:02 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of
seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have.

Yes, we do.

EVERY SINGLE part of the UK has that area's single most popular choice as
their representative.

And that's what your vote actually goes towards. Who represents YOUR AREA
at Westminster. No more, no less.

Just because you don't understand how our representative democracy works
doesn't make it broken.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:37:17 +0100, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:24:02 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of
seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have.

Yes, we do.

EVERY SINGLE part of the UK has that area's single most popular choice as
their representative.

And that's what your vote actually goes towards. Who represents YOUR AREA
at Westminster. No more, no less.

Just because you don't understand how our representative democracy works
doesn't make it broken.

Funny how the representatives that half the country voted for aren't in at all. And you could get more representatives in party A than B, yet more voted for B than A. That is not any kind of democracy at all, it's an absolute farce. It's basically adding a huge injection of luck to the voting results - I want the politicians the public want, not the ones the roll of a dice wants.

--
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

On 11/06/2016 18:24, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:18:52 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot
of seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have.


No we would have politicians that the party leaders put first on the list.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:08:13 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 11/06/2016 18:24, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:18:52 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot
of seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have..


No we would have politicians that the party leaders put first on the list.

There are many ways to do it, but I thought the most common was you still got the MP you voted for (if you're in the majority in that seat). If you're a minority in that seat, you get an MP picked by the party. Surely it's better to get an MP picked by your own party than an MP in the wrong party?

--
An elderly couple go to church one Sunday.
Halfway through the service, the wife leans over and whispers in her husbands ear,
€œIve just let out a silent fart. What do you think I should do?€�
The husband replies, €œPut a new battery in your hearing aid.€�

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:15:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 10/06/2016 10:32, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.


I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.
Thereby is the path to hell. I'm not surprised to read that you have
no principles, Typical remain person. I'm still waiting for the positive
case for remaining from you!

You will wait a long time as I don't regard you as worth wasting time on.

If you have a good case, then the whole group can read it.

--
On 24 March 1975, Alex Mitchell, from King's Lynn, England, died laughing while watching the "Kung Fu Kapers" episode of The Goodies, featuring a kilt-clad Scotsman with his bagpipes battling a master of the Lancastrian martial art "Eckythump", who was armed with a black pudding. After 25 minutes of continuous laughter, Mitchell finally slumped on the sofa and died from heart failure. His widow later sent The Goodies a letter thanking them for making Mitchell's final moments of life so pleasant.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:12:09 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
but the UK does not have the concept of "write ins" so you cannot
actually vote for your cat

You can if you pay for it to run in the election. Did someone not do
something similar once for a laugh? Entering an animal or a fictitious
alien etc?

Yup. And Boris got elected.

Boris is more like a human being than a politician.

--
If Rap is music, then falling off the roof is transportation.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:16:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason
to vote UKIP.

Now I know you're deluded. It's the reason the vast majority who voted
UKIP did. As you'd know if you ever attended one of their non filmed
meetings.

I assume you realise that was written by The Natural Philosopher and not
me.

Yes - the little arrows tell me who has said what. Didn't you know that?

Yes, but so many don't that often people get misquoted.

But since you didn't disagree with him...

Your post only has my name in the attributions at the top, and you say you know what you're doing? Who wrote what's got 5 arrows on it in this post? And 3 arrows?

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

If they like used car salesmen, yes.

List the policies of UKIP you disagree with.

If they actually had any I'd most likely disagree with them.

Are you too lazy to google them? I looked them up when considering who to vote for.

Because any which looked remotely sensible would be lies.

All politicians lie to some extent, but there is no reason to believe the UKIP are any worse.

--
"I'll have the rump steak, rare, please."
He said, "Aren't you worried about the mad cow?"
"Nah, she can order for herself."
And that's when the fight started....

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:31:03 +0100, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:17:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason
to vote UKIP.

Now I know you're deluded. It's the reason the vast majority who voted
UKIP did. As you'd know if you ever attended one of their non filmed
meetings.

I assume you realise that was written by The Natural Philosopher and not
me.

Yes - the little arrows tell me who has said what. Didn't you know that?

But since you didn't disagree with him...

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

If they like used car salesmen, yes.

List the policies of UKIP you disagree with.

If they actually had any I'd most likely disagree with them. Because any
which looked remotely sensible would be lies.

Ah, dodging and weaving as usual Plowperson.

Do not use PC terminology again unless you want slapped.

You really are brainwashed/dead.

--
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you. -- George Carlin

On 11/06/16 16:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:29:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:47:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or
Labour
HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually
espousing
UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which
closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to
you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the
parties
and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting
reason to
vote UKIP.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.

He lied thru his teeth when he said that he would resign
from UKIP

H3e said he would resign the leadership. Not from UKIP, so its you who
are lying.

if he didnt get his seat in Westminster.


He did resign. He was invited to re-take the job, and he did.


If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of
seats.


still polling twice the limp dims, if you remember them.




--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 11/06/16 18:24, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:18:52 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
wrote:

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot
of seats.

And we'd have a lot more politicians that we couldn't get rid of.

No, we'd have politicians we voted for, which we don't currently have.

Well someone must have voted for them.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:29:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:47:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:17:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/16 16:10, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
You might vote UKIP to send a strong signal to e,g Tory or
Labour
HQ,
that you don't like their policies, without ever actually
espousing
UKIP as an total entitity.

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which
closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.

But you voted UKIP? So immigration is the only important thing to
you?

No, but it's one of them. I look at all the policies of all the
parties
and pick the one with the most policies I agree with.

Actually immigration is the most remote and least interesting reason
to
vote UKIP.

It juts happens to be popular with some people.

It's a damn good reason to vote for them. But yes, they are sensible
about a lot of other things. Basically UKIP is for people with common
sense.

Nigel Farage is the only man among them who will say the truth.

He lied thru his teeth when he said that he would resign
from UKIP if he didnt get his seat in Westminster.

If we didn't have first past the post ****, he would have had a lot of
seats.

He lied thru his teeth when he knew how the voting system works.

On 11/06/2016 20:18, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:15:26 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 10/06/2016 10:32, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 13:43, James Wilkinson wrote:

I don't tactically vote at all. I vote for the party which closest
matches what I want. To me anything else is short sighted.


I do, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils when you
know your real choice doesn't have a chance.
Thereby is the path to hell. I'm not surprised to read that you have
no principles, Typical remain person. I'm still waiting for the positive
case for remaining from you!

You will wait a long time as I don't regard you as worth wasting time on.

If you have a good case, then the whole group can read it.


He's a troll.