Goonersworld

Its unfortunate that it has come to this.

Ive repeatedly (and I do mean REPEATEDLY) asked this poster not to quote me or reference me but it wont stop. The dialogue become very poisonous..... ive done my bit to try to stop it.

Theres plenty more I could say..... (!!!) but I will choose not to.

Having been longstanding member on here I do care about this forum and I hope it will continue and be successful

I am happy to continue discussing the issues in the thread with other members, whether they share my views or not.

Who's post got deleted?

Anyway c'mon guys tone it down.

You can agree, disagree, make a case for your argument but unless you can back up an opinion with facts in black and white then we should have a level of respect that we are offering an opinion, and an opinion isn't worth insults ect.

We come here to discuss issues, if you p*ss each other or insult each other to a point you'll simply have no one to discuss with so its not worth it.

Let the facts speak for themselves, you can't control peoples opinions or even control them being adult enough to admit their wrong .......... but if your right, your right end of.

People need to accept as grown ups that not everyone in the world is going to like the same things, but there's nothing wrong with it, you can either let differences agitate you or learn to appreciate differences which make the world a more interesting place.

DiamondGooner wrote:Who's post got deleted?

Anyway c'mon guys tone it down.

You can agree, disagree, make a case for your argument but unless you can back up an opinion with facts in black and white then we should have a level of respect that we are offering an opinion, and an opinion isn't worth insults ect.

We come here to discuss issues, if you p*ss each other or insult each other to a point you'll simply have no one to discuss with so its not worth it.

Let the facts speak for themselves, you can't control peoples opinions or even control them being adult enough to admit their wrong .......... but if your right, your right end of.

People need to accept as grown ups that not everyone in the world is going to like the same things, but there's nothing wrong with it, you can either let differences agitate you or learn to appreciate differences which make the world a more interesting place.

UFGN has all my posts that challenge him deleted ... sad and a bit pathetic ... the site is dying, when the mods are so biased that any debate that challenges their 'clique' is no longer allowed, there will soon be no debate

UFGN goes around labelling anyone who disagrees with him as arrogant, smug, clueless and a lot worse - call him out as wrong and show him why - POST DELETED ... and if you dare disagree again you get a two week BAN ...

As we all know the site is dying, this stifling of opinions is why .... you will end up with the same dozen posters licking each others arseholes like some weird pack of dogs ... meanwhile people willing to debate/argue/fight will all have moved on ... indeed many already have.

Hurrah - UFGN can declare himself "the winner" but sadly he'll be talking to an empty room ..............

PM a Mod and ask them why they deleted it?

Whilst I don't agree with much UFGN has to say on politics, I try and respect his views without calling him names. He has clearly not been innocent, but does at least resist from calling people c####s these days and this statement ( Ive repeatedly (and I do mean REPEATEDLY) asked this poster not to quote me or reference me but it wont stop. The dialogue become very poisonous..... ive done my bit to try to stop it.) shows he can't be held responsible for things getting out of hand any longer.

Funnily enough, I've been a member of a MTB forum in which all the centre/right have given up posting. Its turned into an echo chamber of Momentum/Corbynites all agreeing with each other and God help anyone who disagrees with them. Seems Political threads are never going to be easy to moderate, unless you resort to anyone insulting anyone else having their post deleted and posters getting warnings and bans.

Having said all that......I do love a forum ruck!

How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader

This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls

There’s nothing the left loves more than a needlessly convoluted bureaucratic farce involving committees, sub-committees, sub-sub-committees, vicious factional infighting, endless votes on stuff, Machiavellian scheming, inexplicable, nonsensical opaque rules that nobody really understands and endless pointless processes (all forms to be filled out in triplicate).

Those lefties presently at the top of the Labour party will be like pigs in shit with all this nonsense going on. This is exactly why they got into politics, is literally what people like Len McClusky live for, and one of the major reasons nobody will ever vote for a socialist government

[youtube] https://youtu.be/t2c-X8HiBng[/youtube]

UFGN wrote:

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader



This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls

Thanks for that link. I had no idea that members of the public could vote but have to pay 25 quid for the privilege. Do you know how many folks actually do so?

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader



This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls

Thanks for that link. I had no idea that members of the public could vote but have to pay 25 quid for the privilege. Do you know how many folks actually do so?

580,000.

The largest membership of any political party in Europe

That reinforces a long held position of mine that the most dedicated and extreme members of any organization always become the leadership ove rtime and thus are the ones who direct the direction of that organization. That is not always a good thing for an organization as it often alienates the more moderate members and quite often runs them off. I strongly suggest that it what happened to Labour, and is happening currently to the Dems in the US.

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:That reinforces a long held position of mine that the most dedicated and extreme members of any organization always become the leadership ove rtime and thus are the ones who direct the direction of that organization. That is not always a good thing for an organization as it often alienates the more moderate members and quite often runs them off. I strongly suggest that it what happened to Labour, and is happening currently to the Dems in the US.

What happened in Labour is that former leader Ed Milliband reduced the membership fee to £3 to encourage more members, especially students

The result was a lot of students joined, but a lot of "enterists" also joined, including Tories, with the specific intention of helping to elect Corbyn

Milliband was a fool

Its my understanding that the membership fee is now at a more sensible price, and that those £3 memberships have long since expired

That is why Keir Starmer, a much better candidate and centre-left, is now likely to be elected

UFGN wrote:

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader

This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls

Muchas gracias.

Is a poll tax not illegal in the UK? Because needing to pay in order to vote is unconstitutional here (even though some states/polling stations violate the 24th Amendment).

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:That reinforces a long held position of mine that the most dedicated and extreme members of any organization always become the leadership ove rtime and thus are the ones who direct the direction of that organization. That is not always a good thing for an organization as it often alienates the more moderate members and quite often runs them off. I strongly suggest that it what happened to Labour, and is happening currently to the Dems in the US.

And the Tea Party and Trump for the GOP.

LMAO wrote:

UFGN wrote:

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:

LMAO wrote:How do your party leadership elections work?

Is it like our closed primaries where you have to be registered for a certain party to be allowed to vote for your preferred candidate to represent the seat in question in an election (except in your case, to be party leader)? And if so, is it a winner-take-all system or some weird electoral vote system (where each district is allotted a specific number of votes that goes to the candidate with the greatest popular vote in that district, and in the end, all the districts are pooled together and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins) like in some of our primaries?

So like, if Starmer, for instance, gets a plurality (or a majority) of the popular vote, he's leader and that's done and dusted?

Each party has its own rules. Labour currently holds an election restricted to MPs and EMPs plus a few other entities that are key party players. The general public really has no say.

Members of the public can join the Labour party, and then they get a vote.

The Leader is always an MP, it would be unthinkable for them not to choose an MP as leader

This is a good summary of the process

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... t-hopefuls

Muchas gracias.

Is a poll tax not illegal in the UK? Because needing to pay in order to vote is unconstitutional here (even though some states/polling stations violate the 24th Amendment).

The point of view taken is that you are paying to join and support the political party. All main parties charge to join as a member to varying degrees

It is obviously free to vote in an election though.

The vast majority of citizens are not members of any political party, even people who vote for a party their whole life probably are not actually a member of that party.

(The phrase "poll tax" is extremely toxic in the UK and sends a shudder down the spine. Cheers Thatcher........ )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots